lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:56:17AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 12:40:05AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > There is no evidence for any such thing. Nor has any plausible
> > theory been put forward as to why such an improvement should occur.
>
> I find what you're saying a rather unbelievable given some of the
> benchmarks I saw when the preempt patch started to floating around.
>
> If you search linuxdevices.com for articles on preempt, you'll see a
> claim about IO performance improvements with the patch. If somethings
> changed then I'd like to know.
>
> The numbers are here:
> http://kpreempt.sourceforge.net/

most kernels out there are buggy w/o preempt. 2.4.21pre4aa3 has most of
the needed preemption checks in the kernel loops instead. It's quite
pointless to compare preempt with an otherwise buggy kernel.

Andrea
-
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 13:33    [W:0.118 / U:5.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site