lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads
From
Date
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:28, Takashi Iwai wrote:

Hi, Takashi Iwai.

> well, i personally am not against the current preempt mechanism from
> the viewpoint of the audio-processing purpose :) the implementation
> is relatively clean and easy.

Agreed.

> i think the first one is needed for preemptive kernel, too.
> with these patches, also 0.1-0.2ms RT-latency is achieved.

Ohh, interesting. I'll give these a spin with PREEMPT=y and see. Thank
you!

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.179 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site