Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:43:49 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |