> The problem here is that when people report
> that the low latency patch works better for them
> than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about
> bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they
> are talking about interactive feel and smoothness.
>
> You're speaking to a peripheral issue.
Yes, but I did latency testing for Robert for several months, now.
> I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
> as an attractive option for the multimedia and
> gaming crowds
I am, too. But more for 3D visualization/simulation (with audio).
> - and in my experience, the low
> latency patches simply give a much smoother
> feel and a more pleasant experience.
Not for me. Even when lock-brake is applied.
> Kernel
> compilation time is the farthest thing from my
> mind when e.g. playing Q3A!
Q3A is _NOT_ changed in any case. Even some smoother system "feeling" with
Q3A and UT 436 running in parallel on an UP 1 GHz Athlon II, 640 MB. Have you
seen something on any Win box?
> I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch
> again and see if anything's changed, if the
> problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been
> dealt with -
You told me that TUX show some problems with preempt before.
What problems? Are they TUX specific?
Some latency numbers coming soon.
-Dieter
-- Dieter Nützel Graduate Student, Computer ScienceUniversity of Hamburg Department of Computer Science @home: Dieter.Nuetzel@hamburg.de - 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 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:41 EST