yodaiken@fsmlabs.com schrieb:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:32:57PM -0500, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> >
> > > So your claim is that:
> > > Preemption improves latency when there are both kernel cpu bound
> > > tasks and tasks that are I/O bound with very low cache hit
> > > rates?
> > >
> > > Is that it?
> > >
> > > Can you give me an example of a CPU bound task that runs
> > > mostly in kernel? Doesn't that seem like a kernel bug?
> >
> > cat /dev/urandom > /dev/null
>
> Don't see any of Daniel's postulated long latencies there. (Sorry, but
> I'm having a hard time figuring out what is meant as a serious comment
> here).
>
This does not count for a "general" kernel:
zisofs reading
e2compr
I will try to compare with preemption kernel patch for out webbox like
device - but there I am mostly interested in "GUI feeling" - and will we
use e2compr on a 2.4.9ac kernel.
-
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 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 21:00:47 EST