Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

From: Dan Hollis (goemon@sasami.anime.net)
Date: Wed Jul 05 2000 - 14:30:24 EST


On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Dan Hollis writes:
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > We should always fix bugs, and fix stupid drivers. No question. We
> > > should always seek to reduce latencies (as long as we don't kill
> > > overall performance).
> > So is N>=4000 a bug or feature? Should it be fixed?
> I have no idea. Where is this huge N coming from? Has anyone done the
> analysis to determine what's contributing to this big N, and whether
> or not it's fixable?

benno measured N>=4000, not sure where its coming from

I know we cant get it in 100% of cases (say broken hardware) but in the
case of known *good* hardware configurations is N<=5 a reasonable target?

Right now even with known "good" hardware we are lucky to get N<=200

At the very least we should keep a list of known bad hardware with
the reasoning behind it (eg ps2 mouse?)

I suspect if people start looking there may be clean ways to deal with
"bad" hardware and still get good latency without convoluted kernel code.

-Dan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST