From: "Dieter Nützel" <Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>, J Sloan <jjs@lexus.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.17 vs 2.2.19 vs rml new VM
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 00:14:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020102231431Z287173-13997+212@vger.kernel.org> (raw)
On Tuesday, 2. January 2002 20:50, Alan cox wrote:
> > I find the low latency patch makes a noticeable
> > difference in e.g. q3a and rtcw - OTOH I have
> > not been able to discern any tangible difference
> > from the stock kernel when using -preempt.
>
> The measurements I've seen put lowlatency ahead of pre-empt in quality
> of results. Since low latency fixes some of the locked latencies it might
> be interesting for someone with time to benchmark
>
> vanilla
> low latency
> pre-empt
> both together
Don't forget that you have to use preempt-kernel-rml + lock-break-rml to
achieve the same (more) than the latency patch.
Taken from Robert's page and running it for some weeks, now.
[-]
Lock breaking for the Preemptible Kernel
lock-break-rml-2.4.15-1
lock-break-rml-2.4.16-3
lock-break-rml-2.4.17-2
lock-break-rml-2.4.18-pre1-1
README
ChangeLog
With the preemptible kernel, the need for explicit scheduling points, like in
the low-latency patches, are no more. However, since we can not preempt while
locks are held, we can take a similar model as low-latency and "break" (drop
and immediately reacquire) locks to improve system response. The trick is
finding when and where we can safely break the locks (periods of quiescence)
and how to safely recover. The majority of the lock breaking is in the VM and
VFS code. This patch is for users with strong system response requirements
affected by the worst-case latencies caused by long-held locks.
[-]
Regards,
Dieter
--
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science
University of Hamburg
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-02 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-02 23:14 Dieter Nützel [this message]
2002-01-02 23:49 ` J Sloan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-02 9:33 brian
2002-01-02 10:07 ` Alan Cox
2002-01-02 12:25 ` Rik van Riel
2002-01-02 19:07 ` J Sloan
2002-01-02 20:50 ` Alan Cox
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=20020102231431Z287173-13997+212@vger.kernel.org \
--to=dieter.nuetzel@hamburg.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=jjs@lexus.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/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®