[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch
On Sat, 2001-09-08 at 01:22, wrote:
> I am running 2.4.10-pre4 with the rml-preempt patch.
> built and rebooted this on my workstation yesterday when I saw the patch
> posted and it's been working great.

_Very_ glad to hear this.

> I'm running it on a dual P3-550 with 256MB ram with CONFIG_SMP and no
> problems whatsoever although it hasn't been worked 'real' hard yet.
> (load no higher than 4) ;)

I am surprised you have no problems with CONFIG_SMP=y &&
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. Promising.

> Figured I'd give some positive feedback about the patch. If you want,
> Rob, I could run some benchmarks on this against an unpatched kernel, or
> if you have some ideas for me to really stress this thing to see if it
> breaks, let me know.

I would love this. We could use some SMP datapoints badly.

You can run some of the tests made especially for testing latency, like
an audio benchmark. One such test is at

Obviously a heavily tasked I/O benchmark is useful, I have used dbench
in the past ( (try it with 16
processes or so), but I have been told I should use bonnie.

You can time normal things, too. `time make dep clean bzImage' is always
a favorite :)

Under UP, enabling preemption helps all of this (the recent linuxdevices
article on preemption shows a 30x decrease in latency.). Both myself
and Nigel have run dbench with good results for -16. See for some more.

whatever you can... anyhow, thank you for the positive feedback.

Robert M. Love
rml at
rml at

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 13:02    [W:0.085 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site