![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> hardware to hardware could have a higher priority than normal programs being > run. That way they're not preempted by simple programs, it would have to > be purposely preempted by the user. How do you know they are there. How do you detect the situation, or do you plan to audit every driver ? > Lowering the latency, sure the low latency code probably does nearly as well > as the preempt patch. that's fine. Shortening the time locks are held by Not nearly as well. The tests I've seen it runs _better_ than just pre-empt and pre-empt + low latency is the same as pure low latency - 1mS Alan - 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 12:18 [W:2.476 / U:0.590 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||