On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:10:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Huey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There's really no good reason why this kernel can't get the same
> > latency as a nanokernel. The scheduler paths are riddled with SMP
> > rebalancing stuff and the like which contributes to overall system
> > latency. Remove those things and replace it with things like direct
> > CPU pining and you'll start seeing those numbers collapse. [...]
>
> could you be a bit more specific? None of that stuff should show up on
> UP kernels. Even on SMP, rebalancing is either asynchronous, or O(1).
I found out a couple of problems with IRQ rebalancing in that the
latency spread was effected by a ping-ponging of the actual interrupt
itself. I reported this to you in November and I fixed this problem
by gluing the interrupt to the same cpu as the irq-thread.
Not sure if it was the rebalancing or the cache issues, but they seem
related.
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
