Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:36:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:36:34 -0400 Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com ([207.69.200.110]:21794 "EHLO smtp6.mindspring.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:36:18 -0400 Subject: Re: low-latency patches From: Robert Love To: Bob McElrath Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15.99+cvs.2001.10.05.08.08 (Preview Release) Date: 06 Oct 2001 18:36:49 -0400 Message-Id: <1002407812.1915.21.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2001-10-06 at 02:05, Bob McElrath wrote: > [...] > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the former uses spinlocks to know when it can > preempt the kernel, and the latter just tries to reduce latency by adding > (un)conditional_schedule and placing it at key places in the kernel? Correct. The low-latency patch does some other work to try to break up huge routines, too. > My questions are: > 1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance? Has anyone > benchmarked them against each other? I suspect you will find a lower average latency with the preemption patch. However, I suspect with the low-latency patch you may see a lower maximum since it works on some of the terribly long-held lock situations. In truth, a combination of the two could prove useful. I have been working on finding the worst-case non-preemption regions (longest held lock regions) in the kernel. > 2) Will either of these ever be merged into Linus' kernel (2.5?) I hope :) > 3) Is there a possibility that either of these will make it to non-x86 > platforms? (for me: alpha) The second patch looks like it would > straightforwardly work on any arch, but the config.in for it is only in > arch/i386. Robert Love's patches would need some arch-specific asm... Andrew's patch should work fine on all platforms, although I think the configure statement is in the processor section so you will need to move it to arch/alpha/config.in The preemption patch has a small amount of arch-independent code but we are working on supporting all architectures. 2.5... 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/