[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
    On January 9, 2002 12:02 am, Luigi Genoni wrote:
    > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > On January 8, 2002 04:29 pm, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > > > but I just wanted to make clear that the
    > > > idea that is floating around that preemptive kernel is all goodness is
    > > > very far from reality, you get very low mean latency but at a price.
    > >
    > > A price lots of people are willing to pay
    > Probably sometimes they are not making a good business.

    Perhaps. But they are happy customers and their music sounds better.

    Note: the dominating cost of -preempt is not Robert's patch, but the fact
    that you need to have CONFIG_SMP enabled, even for uniprocessor, turning all
    those stub macros into real spinlocks. For a dual processor you have to have
    this anyway and it just isn't an issue.

    Personally, I don't intend to ever get another single-processor machine,
    except maybe a laptop, and that's only if Transmeta doesn't come up with a
    dual-processor laptop configuration.

    > > By the way, have you measured the cost of -preempt in practice?
    > Yes, I did a lot of tests, and with current preempt patch definitelly
    > I was seeing a too big performance loss.

    Was this on uniprocessor machines, or your dual Athlons? How did you measure
    the performance?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.022 / U:12.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site