From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161335AbWASTJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:09:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161338AbWASTJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:09:44 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:12425 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161335AbWASTJn (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:09:43 -0500 Subject: RE: My vote against eepro* removal From: Steven Rostedt To: kus Kusche Klaus Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Revell In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:09:04 -0500 Message-Id: <1137697744.6762.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 11:26 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > > From: Lee Revell > > On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 08:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > > > Last time I tested (around 2.6.12), eepro100 worked much better > > > in -rt kernels w.r.t. latencies than e100: Try the latest -rt kernel with e100 to see if it still is a delay. You can also run in PREEMPT_DESKTOP so that the interrupt handlers are not threads and see if that shows up in the latency. -- Steve