attached mail follows:
Bob McElrath wrote:
> 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...
In my experience with them, the Andrew Morton patches
provide a "smoother" interactive feel, great for things like
online gaming (quake 3 arena, etc), however the Robert
Love patches are simpler, seem less intrusive, and I've
had better luck with them on smp, highmem boxes.
(just IMHO) I like Andrew's patches on (up) workstations,
and Robert's on (smp) servers, with some grey area of
overlap -
I'm hardly the person to say, but the rml patches would
seem more likely to go in sooner, if at all. I'd love to see
both remain an option.
cu
jjs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:41 EST