* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >rwsems/rwlocks are not an issue in -rt because they have different
> >semantics there - and thus readers cannot amass. I do think rwsems and
> >rwlocks have pretty nasty characteristics [non-latency ones] for the
> >mainline kernel's use too, but that's not being argued here ;)
>
> But all I'm saying is that while there are equivalent magnitudes of
> interrupts off regions in mainline, there is little point introducing
> a hack like this to "solve" one of them.
nobody is arguing to have this hack included. Hacks are to be introduced
into the scheduler only over my cold dead body ;-) Steve only sent this
as an RFC thing, to raise the issue.
> If anyone is running hackbench 20 on their sound mixer, then they
> deserve to have overruns.
just to give you an idea of what we have achieved with the -rt kernel so
far: my regular -rt stress-test setup has a "hackbench 50" in its
"deadly mix of SCHED_OTHER workloads", in addition to 40 parallel runs
of LTP runalltests.sh, with flood pinging and other networking and IO
stresstests, combined with a task that allocates and dirties a 1.5GB
buffer in an infinite loop while there's only 1GB of RAM - and still
during many hours of running this stress-test (which produces a load
average of 200-500) the -rt kernel runs SCHED_FIFO tasks in 20 usecs,
worst-case.
Ingo
-
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]
