[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Scheduling latencies news: less RAM = less latency

    On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > no, it really happens. With 512M RAM and a 4-way Xeon i easily got
    > 20ms+ latencies. These latencies are rare because it's caused by
    > prune_dcache(), but they do happen.

    prune_dcache() I can believe. But the report was about d_lookup(). So
    somebody is using bad profiling information, and that's dangerous.

    Also, the si_meminfo() etc stuff is just ridiculous. It's not a question
    of latency: it's a question of CPU usage. We need to just get rid of those
    functions instead of hacking around them - regardless of whether you add
    "reschedule" calls in them, they just eat too much CPU, plain and simple.
    Again, please don't treat the symptoms - I will not accept patches that
    just say "oh, this is crap, so let's reschedule a bit here". They need to
    be fixed properly or not at all.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.018 / U:41.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site