lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: low-latency patches
Date
On October 6, 2001 08:46 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Bob McElrath wrote:
> > 1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance? Has anyone
> > benchmarked them against each other?
>
> I haven't seen any rigorous latency measurements on Rob's stuff, and
> I haven't seriously measured the reschedule-based patch for months. But
> I would expect the preempt patch to perform significantly worse because
> it doesn't attempt to break up the abovementioned long-held locks.

Nor should it. The preemption patch should properly address only what is
needed to implement preemption, and a patch similar to yours should be
applied on top to break up the remaining lock latencies. (Perhaps a duh?)

> (It can
> do so, though - a straightforward adaptation of the reschedule patch's
> changes will fix it).

Yep.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:04    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site