Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: low-latency patches | Date | Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:33:42 +0200 |
| |
On October 6, 2001 08:46 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > Bob McElrath wrote: > > 1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance? Has anyone > > benchmarked them against each other? > > I haven't seen any rigorous latency measurements on Rob's stuff, and > I haven't seriously measured the reschedule-based patch for months. But > I would expect the preempt patch to perform significantly worse because > it doesn't attempt to break up the abovementioned long-held locks.
Nor should it. The preemption patch should properly address only what is needed to implement preemption, and a patch similar to yours should be applied on top to break up the remaining lock latencies. (Perhaps a duh?)
> (It can > do so, though - a straightforward adaptation of the reschedule patch's > changes will fix it).
Yep.
-- Daniel - 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/
|  |