lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
    Daniel Phillips wrote:

    >On January 13, 2002 08:35 pm, J Sloan wrote:
    >
    >>The problem here is that when people report
    >>that the low latency patch works better for them
    >>than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about
    >>bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they
    >>are talking about interactive feel and smoothness.
    >>
    >
    >Nobody is claiming the low latency patch works better than
    >-preempt+lock_break, only that low latency can equal -preempt+lock_break,
    >which is a claim I'm skeptical of, but oh well.
    >
    AFAICT Alan Cox et al are saying that low-latency
    gives better latency than -preempt, but that if lock-break
    is added to -preempt, the results are basically the same.

    IOW lock-break + preempt =~ low-latency as far as the
    latency question is concerned.

    >>I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
    >>as an attractive option for the multimedia and
    >>gaming crowds - and in my experience, the low
    >>latency patches simply give a much smoother
    >>feel and a more pleasant experience. Kernel
    >>compilation time is the farthest thing from my
    >>mind when e.g. playing Q3A!
    >>
    >
    >You need to read the thread *way* more closely ;-)
    >
    Admittedly my observations have been more from
    an "end-user" point of view, because at the end
    of the day, what I experience while using Linux as
    a multimedia/gaming platform is worth more than a
    barrel of benchmarks - and while kernel compilation
    time is of interest, it is just _one_ benchmark in the
    greater scheme of things. (not to mention that that
    benchmark result could probably be matched in a
    non -preempt kernel via /proc tuning)


    >>I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch
    >>again and see if anything's changed, if the
    >>problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been
    >>dealt with -
    >>
    >
    >Right, useful.
    >
    See my previous reply, or the archives -

    Regards,

    jjs



    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.055 / U:0.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site