From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261941AbVFWBIj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:08:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261946AbVFWBIj (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:08:39 -0400 Received: from smtp.lnxw.com ([207.21.185.24]:4869 "EHLO smtp.lnxw.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261941AbVFWBIe (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:08:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:15:10 -0700 To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: "Bill Huey (hui)" , Ingo Molnar , Kristian Benoit , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, rpm@xenomai.org Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 Message-ID: <20050623011510.GA3448@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <42B98B20.7020304@opersys.com> <20050622192927.GA13817@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050622200554.GA16119@elte.hu> <42B9CC98.1040402@opersys.com> <20050622220428.GA28906@elte.hu> <42B9F673.4040100@opersys.com> <20050623000607.GB11486@elte.hu> <42BA069D.20208@opersys.com> <20050623005538.GA3348@nietzsche.lynx.com> <42BA0BCA.6020903@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42BA0BCA.6020903@opersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 09:09:30PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > But I don't want to "fight" Ingo. There would just be no point > whatsoever with "fighting" with one the best developers Linux > has. I started my involvement in these recent threads with a > very clear statement that I was open to being shown wrong in > having exclusively championed the nanokernel approach in the > past. I set out to show myself wrong with these tests and > beside some vague expectations, I truely didn't know what I > was going to find. I certainly wouldn't have bet a hot-dog on > preempt_rt coming neck-to-neck with the ipipe on interrupt > latency ... So yes, in doing so some results I've found aren't Yeah, but so what ? don't freak out and take all of this so seriously. It's not like nanokernels are going to disappear when this patch gets broader acceptance. And who cares if you're wrong ? you ? :) Really, get a grip man. :) And, of course, DUH, making a kernel fully preemptive makes it (near) real time. These aren't unexpected results. > that nice. But, hell, I didn't invent those results. They are > there for anyone to repdroduce or contradict. I have no > monopoly over LMbench, PC hardware, the Linux kernel, or > anything else used to get those numbers. Thanks for the numbers, really. I do expect some kind of performance degradation, but there seems to be triggering some oddities with the patch that aren't consistent with some of our expectations. Be patient. :) bill