On January 13, 2002 08:35 pm, J Sloan wrote:
> The problem here is that when people report
> that the low latency patch works better for them
> than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about
> bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they
> are talking about interactive feel and smoothness.
Nobody is claiming the low latency patch works better than
-preempt+lock_break, only that low latency can equal -preempt+lock_break,
which is a claim I'm skeptical of, but oh well.
> I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
> as an attractive option for the multimedia and
> gaming crowds - and in my experience, the low
> latency patches simply give a much smoother
> feel and a more pleasant experience. Kernel
> compilation time is the farthest thing from my
> mind when e.g. playing Q3A!
You need to read the thread *way* more closely ;-)
> I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch
> again and see if anything's changed, if the
> problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been
> dealt with -
Right, useful.
-- Daniel - 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 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:43 EST