From: Bob McElrath <mcelrath+linux@draal.physics.wisc.edu>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: low-latency patches
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:05:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1038 bytes --]
It seems there are two low-latency projects out there. The one by Robert Love:
http://tech9.net/rml/linux/
and the original one:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/schedlat.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the former uses spinlocks to know when it can
preempt the kernel, and the latter just tries to reduce latency by adding
(un)conditional_schedule and placing it at key places in the kernel?
My questions are:
1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance? Has anyone
benchmarked them against each other?
2) Will either of these ever be merged into Linus' kernel (2.5?)
3) Is there a possibility that either of these will make it to non-x86
platforms? (for me: alpha) The second patch looks like it would
straightforwardly work on any arch, but the config.in for it is only in
arch/i386. Robert Love's patches would need some arch-specific asm...
Thanks,
-- Bob
Bob McElrath (rsmcelrath@students.wisc.edu)
Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 240 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2001-10-06 6:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-06 6:05 Bob McElrath [this message]
2001-10-06 6:46 ` Andrew Morton
2001-10-06 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2001-10-06 20:42 ` Bob McElrath
2001-10-06 22:00 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-08 12:47 ` Helge Hafting
2001-10-08 17:41 ` george anzinger
2001-10-08 18:24 ` Andrew Morton
2001-10-08 18:36 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-06 22:22 ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:36 ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:46 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-07 1:12 ` Robert Love
2001-10-07 2:38 ` Jeffrey W. Baker
2001-10-07 2:55 ` Robert Love
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-10 15:27 David Balazic
2001-03-08 13:06 Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu \
--to=mcelrath+linux@draal.physics.wisc.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®