Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:15:10 -0700 | Subject | Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 09:09:30PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > But I don't want to "fight" Ingo. There would just be no point > whatsoever with "fighting" with one the best developers Linux > has. I started my involvement in these recent threads with a > very clear statement that I was open to being shown wrong in > having exclusively championed the nanokernel approach in the > past. I set out to show myself wrong with these tests and > beside some vague expectations, I truely didn't know what I > was going to find. I certainly wouldn't have bet a hot-dog on > preempt_rt coming neck-to-neck with the ipipe on interrupt > latency ... So yes, in doing so some results I've found aren't
Yeah, but so what ? don't freak out and take all of this so seriously. It's not like nanokernels are going to disappear when this patch gets broader acceptance. And who cares if you're wrong ? you ? :) Really, get a grip man. :)
And, of course, DUH, making a kernel fully preemptive makes it (near) real time. These aren't unexpected results.
> that nice. But, hell, I didn't invent those results. They are > there for anyone to repdroduce or contradict. I have no > monopoly over LMbench, PC hardware, the Linux kernel, or > anything else used to get those numbers.
Thanks for the numbers, really. I do expect some kind of performance degradation, but there seems to be triggering some oddities with the patch that aren't consistent with some of our expectations.
Be patient. :)
bill
- 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/
| |