On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 08:51 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > well, softirq preemption is not really a drastic step - its biggest > problem is that it cannot be included in v2.6.16 ;-) But i agree that > if a solution can be found to break up a latency path, that is > preferred. > Agreed. It's only drastic in the context of my target (meeting a 1ms soft RT constraint) as this happens to be the one of the only code paths getting in the way. Also I'd like to be able to go down to 1ms without requiring a custom kernel config... 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/
- References:
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] fbdev: Fix usage of blank value passed to fb_blank
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] pid: Don't hash pid 0.
- Previous by thread: Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- Next by thread: Re: RCU latency regression in 2.6.16-rc1
- Index(es):
 |