Re: RT patch acceptance

[hui]

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:10:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Huey <bhuey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > There's really no good reason why this kernel can't get the same 
> > latency as a nanokernel. The scheduler paths are riddled with SMP 
> > rebalancing stuff and the like which contributes to overall system 
> > latency. Remove those things and replace it with things like direct 
> > CPU pining and you'll start seeing those numbers collapse. [...]
> 
> could you be a bit more specific? None of that stuff should show up on 
> UP kernels. Even on SMP, rebalancing is either asynchronous, or O(1).

I found out a couple of problems with IRQ rebalancing in that the
latency spread was effected by a ping-ponging of the actual interrupt
itself. I reported this to you in November and I fixed this problem
by gluing the interrupt to the same cpu as the irq-thread.

Not sure if it was the rebalancing or the cache issues, but they seem
related.

bill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/