![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Robert Love wrote: > > > PS I know you keep hearing this, but that preempt patch makes for some > > damn smooth interactive performance ;) > > I can't hear it enough :) > umm... Look. Sorry. But I don't see any theoretical reason why interactivity should be noticeably different from the little patch at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/andrea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.14pre7aa2/00_lowlatency-fixes-2 and I did some quantitative testing a week or so back which bears this out. With either patch, worst-case latencies are very rare, and very bad. Usual latencies are excellent. Is there any reason why preempt should be noticeably better than that little patch? If it is, then where on earth are the problematic commonly-occuring, long-running, lock-free code paths? - - 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 12:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||