On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 03:53:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > AFAIK the kernel has quite regressed recently, but that was not true
> > (for reasonable sound) at least for some earlier 2.6 kernels and some
> > of the low latency patchkit 2.4 kernels.
>
> (putting my scheduler maintainer hat on) was this under a stock !PREEMPT
> kernel?
Yes. I did not run the numbers personally, but I was told 2.6.11+
was already considerable worse for latency tests with jack than 2.6.8+
(this was with vendor kernels in SUSE releases); and apparently
2.6.8 was already worse than earlier 2.6.4/5 kernels or the later
and better 2.4s. CONFIG_PREEMPT in all cases did not change the
picture much. Sorry for being light on details; as I did
not run the tests personally.
BTW another reason I am pretty suspicious against the old style preempt
stuff and intrusive latency in general too is that it was broken forever
in x86-64 - I only fixed it after 2.6.11 which you may have noticed. Before
that it it would only preempt when the interrupts were off,not
on (pretty embarassing bug). And nobody complained; The problem was only found
during code review for a completely different project (thanks JanB!)
And x86-64 is quite widely used these days.
So in practice all these latencies cannot be that big a problem.
-Andi
-
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]
