Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:34:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:33:58 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:1034 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:33:52 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Andrew Morton , Bob McElrath Subject: Re: low-latency patches Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:33:42 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20011006163412Z16352-2758+1299@humbolt.nl.linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On October 6, 2001 08:46 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > Bob McElrath wrote: > > 1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance? Has anyone > > benchmarked them against each other? > > I haven't seen any rigorous latency measurements on Rob's stuff, and > I haven't seriously measured the reschedule-based patch for months. But > I would expect the preempt patch to perform significantly worse because > it doesn't attempt to break up the abovementioned long-held locks. Nor should it. The preemption patch should properly address only what is needed to implement preemption, and a patch similar to yours should be applied on top to break up the remaining lock latencies. (Perhaps a duh?) > (It can > do so, though - a straightforward adaptation of the reschedule patch's > changes will fix it). Yep. -- 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/