lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectlowlatency-2.2.13-A1 questions

The udelay_resched(n) macro does not seem to reference "n",
would the following be an acceptable implementation?

#define udelay_resched(n) (\
{ int i; \
for (i = 0; i < ((n+9)/10); i++) { \
conditional_schedule(); \
udelay(10); \
} \
})

---------

I have been using the lowlatency-2.2.10-N6B.patch with good results.
I recently installed the 2.2.13 kernel and applied the lowlatency-2.2.13-A1
patch, however the results were not quite as good. The 2.2.10-N6B patch
on the 2.2.10 kernel gave +/-500usec scheduling latencies whereas
the 2.2.13-A1 patch on the kernel gave +/-3msec latencies. Any idea
why? These results were obtained on a Pentium III 500MHz.

How were the high latency areas identified? I would be very happy
to help in testing and contributing to this patch.

Wm


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.068 / U:4.728 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site