Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:10:57 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call |
| |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:56:17AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:40:05AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > There is no evidence for any such thing. Nor has any plausible > > theory been put forward as to why such an improvement should occur. > > I find what you're saying a rather unbelievable given some of the > benchmarks I saw when the preempt patch started to floating around. > > If you search linuxdevices.com for articles on preempt, you'll see a > claim about IO performance improvements with the patch. If somethings > changed then I'd like to know. > > The numbers are here: > http://kpreempt.sourceforge.net/
most kernels out there are buggy w/o preempt. 2.4.21pre4aa3 has most of the needed preemption checks in the kernel loops instead. It's quite pointless to compare preempt with an otherwise buggy kernel.
Andrea - 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/
| |