![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
george anzinger wrote: > > wwp wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > here's a newbie question: > > is it UNadvisable to apply both preempt-kernel-rml and low-latency patches > > over a 2.4.18 kernel? > > > > thanx in advance > > > > -- > I believe that the preempt kernel patch or one related to it does the > low-latency stuff in a more economical way, Sigh. Not to single you out, George - I see abject misunderstanding and misinformation about this sort of thing all over the place. So let's make some statements: - preemption is more expensive that explicit scheduling points. Always was, always shall be. - Anyone who has performed measurements knows that preemption is ineffective. Worst-case latencies are still up to 100 milliseconds. - preemptability is a *basis* for getting a maintainable low-latency kernel. And that's the reason why I support its merge into 2.5. Same with Ingo, I expect. But there's a lot of icky stuff to be done yet to make it effective. > i.e. takes advantage of the > preemption code to implement the low-latency stuff. See the lock-break > patch that rml has. It should be right next to the preempt patch. lock-break is missing the cross-SMP reschedule hack, so on SMP it'll still have very high worst-case latencies. If all the other parts of the low-latency patch were included then preempt+lock-break should give better results than low-latency. - - 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 12:20 [W:0.312 / U:0.000 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||