Nor I do.
But I'm still not convinced it this is really possible.
You have to check rescheduling during
kernel memcopy routines , or large mem blocks moves, since at 100MB/sec
1MB of data = 10msec latency.
It not an easy task to keep latencies down.
Maybe the checking generates some cache misses and decreases performance,
especially when copying many small blocks ?
> > I think most of us want to have these "low-latency" features in the upcoming
> > 2.4 kernel since it will make Linux a very good _MULTIMEDIA_OS_.
> Everybody wants low-latency. But Linus looked at the patches and said
> "If *that* helps then something is wrong. Those functions shouldn't
> take so much time!"
> He then refused to accept patches that "paper over" a bug. Instead he
> wanted the bug fixed (i.e. make the functions in question take less
> time - they way they should.)
Agreed, but the question is: is some kernel hacker motivated to do
implement this before 2.4 ?
> That would give the same low latency without hurting disk performance under
I'm not 100%sure about this ..
Nothing comes at zero cost..
-- Benno Senoner E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Linux scheduling latency benchmarks http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/