Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads
From: Robert Love
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 10:43:01 EST
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.
> 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
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/