lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: My vote against eepro* removal
From
Date
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> For a non-full preemption kernel, your patch moves the 500 us
> piece of code from kernel to thread context, so it really
> improves things. But is 500 us something to worry about in a
> non-full preemption kernel?

Yes, absolutely. Once exit_mmap (a latency regression which was
introduced in 2.6.14) and rt_run_flush/rt_garbage_collect (which have
always been problematic) are fixed, 500usecs will stick out like a sore
thumb even on a regular PREEMPT kernel.

Also, you should be able to capture this latency in /proc/latency trace
by configuring an -rt kernel with PREEMPT_DESKTOP and hard/softirq
preemption disabled.

Lee

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-21 01:48    [W:0.089 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site