Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads
From: Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>, "Marinos J. Yannikos" <mjy@geizhals.at>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <s5hlllycgz3.wl@alsa2.suse.de>
References: <40591EC1.1060204@geizhals.at>
	 <20040318060358.GC29530@dualathlon.random>  <s5hlllycgz3.wl@alsa2.suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1079624457.2136.26.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:40:58 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 715
Lines: 24

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.

Agreed.

> 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
you!

	Robert Love


-
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/