Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.12 Performance problems | Date | Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:46:09 +0300 |
| |
On Sunday 21 August 2005 23:21, Danial Thom wrote: > > You problem could very well be something else > > entirely, but try a > > kernel build with PREEMPT_NONE and HZ=100 and > > see if it makes a big > > difference (or if that's your current config, > > then try the opposite, > > HZ=1000 and PREEMPT). If it does make a > > difference, then that's a > > valuable piece of information to report on the > > list. If it turns out > > it makes next to no difference at all, then > > that as well is relevant > > information as then people will know that HZ & > > preempt is not the > > cause and can focus on finding the problem > > elsewhere. > > Yes. Hz isn't going to make much difference on a > 2.0Ghz opteron, but I can see how premption can > cause packet loss. Shouldn't packet processing be > the highest priority process? It seems pointless > to "keep the audio buffers full" if you're > dropping packets as a result. > > Also some clown typing on the keyboard shouldn't > cause packet loss. Trading network integrity for > snappy responsiveness is a bad trade.
You do not need to argue about usefulness of preempt (or lack thereof). You need to try non-PREEMPT kernel as suggested (if you really are interested in fixing performance degradation you observe, that is).
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- vda
- 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/
| |