[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.10-ac10-preempt lmbench output.
On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 23:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> [...]
> I think the issue you raise is that dbench gets a 10msec more of cpu
> time and xmms starts running 10msec later than expected (because of the
> scheduler latency peak worst case of 10msec).
> But that doesn't matter. The scheduler isn't perfect anyways. The
> resolution of the scheduler is 10msec too, so you can easily lose 10msec
> anywhere else no matter of whatever scheduler latency of 10msec. [...]

I agree with generally everything you say.

I think, however, you are making two assumptions:

(a) xmms has a very large leeway in the timing of its execution

(b) the maximum time a process sits in kernel space is 10ms.

While I agree (a) is true, it may not be so in all scenerios.
Furthermore, the specified leeway does not exist for all timing-critical
tasks. Not all of these tasks are specialized real-time applications,

Most importantly, however, the maximum latency of the system is not
10ms. Even _with_ preemption, we have observed greater latencies (due
to long held locks).

This is why I believe the a preemptible kernel benefits more than just
real-time signal processing.

Robert Love

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:05    [W:0.104 / U:2.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site