RE: My vote against eepro* removal

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> For a non-full preemption kernel, your patch moves the 500 us 
> piece of code from kernel to thread context, so it really 
> improves things. But is 500 us something to worry about in a
> non-full preemption kernel? 

Yes, absolutely.  Once exit_mmap (a latency regression which was
introduced in 2.6.14) and rt_run_flush/rt_garbage_collect (which have
always been problematic) are fixed, 500usecs will stick out like a sore
thumb even on a regular PREEMPT kernel.

Also, you should be able to capture this latency in /proc/latency trace
by configuring an -rt kernel with PREEMPT_DESKTOP and hard/softirq
preemption disabled.

Lee

-
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/