Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: 2.4.10-ac10-preempt lmbench output. | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 09 Oct 2001 23:24:36 -0400 |
| |
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, either.
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 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/
|  |