Robert Love wrote:
>
> > PS I know you keep hearing this, but that preempt patch makes for some
> > damn smooth interactive performance ;)
>
> I can't hear it enough :)
>
umm... Look. Sorry. But I don't see any theoretical reason
why interactivity should be noticeably different from the
little patch at
and I did some quantitative testing a week or so back which
bears this out. With either patch, worst-case latencies
are very rare, and very bad. Usual latencies are excellent.
Is there any reason why preempt should be noticeably better than
that little patch? If it is, then where on earth are the
problematic commonly-occuring, long-running, lock-free code paths?
-
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:25 EST