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    [W:0.029 / U:1.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site