Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads | From | Robert Love <> | Date | Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:40:58 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |