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 [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]
