Re: low-latency patches

From: Andrew Morton (
Date: Mon Oct 08 2001 - 13:24:33 EST

george anzinger wrote:
> Well, no, but do we want to improve as kernel writers, or just stay
> "hackers"? If low latency was a concern the same way lack of dead locks
> and avoiding OOPs is today, don't you think we would be better coders?
> As for me, I want to shoot for the higher goal. Even if I miss, I will
> still have accomplished more than if I had shot for the mundane.

Right. It needs to be a conscious, planned decision: "from now on,
holding a lock for more than 500 usecs is a bug".

So someone, be it Linus, "the community" or my Mum needs to decide
that this is a feature which the kernel will henceforth support.

It's a new feature - it should be treated as such.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:19 EST