lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREAT (<2.9ms audio latency), see testresults ,but ISDN troubles
On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:

>on a uniprocessor. sct pointed out that reschedule_idle
>is very conservative about setting need_resched and this makes Ingo
>correct when he stated that need_resched>0 means that we really do need
>to resched. I'd be happier with some big database tests, and I really think

IMHO this is not the point at all.

need_resched == 1 means you _have_ to reschedule ASAP careless about the
scheduler algorithm at all.

>that database performance should be checked before any such change goes
>into the kernel, but for now, I was flat out wrong.

If honouring the need_resched bit is decreasing performances than it means
you _want_ to change the scheduler and not the code that honour the
need_resched bit. Of course I am supposing the checks itself are not the
source of the slowdown.

Andrea


-
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 13:53    [W:0.059 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site