Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:41:18 -0700 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: low-latency patches |
| |
Helge Hafting wrote: > > Mike Fedyk wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 11:46:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > But the next rank of applications - instrumentation, control systems, > > > media production sytems, etc require 500-1000 usec latencies, and > > > the group of people who require this is considerably smaller. And their > > > requirements are quite aggressive. And maintaining that performance > > > with either approach is a fair bit of work and impacts (by definition) > > > the while kernel. That's all an argument for keeping it offstream. > > > > > > > And exactly how is low latency going to hurt the majority? > > > > This reminds me of when 4GB on ia32 was enough, or 16 bit UIDs, or... > > Low latency wobviously won't do damage by itself. But Andrew Morton > said it well: "And maintaining that performance > with either approach is a fair bit of work and impacts (by definition) > the whole kernel." > > I.e. it is too much work to get right (and keep right). The amount > of developers is finite, their time can be better spent on other > improvements. All future improvement will be harder if we also have > to _maintain_ extreme low latency. This is not fix-it-once thing. > Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay "hackers"? If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders? As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal. Even if I miss, I will still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane.
George - 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/
|  |