Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT and server workloads

[Robert Love]

On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:28, Takashi Iwai wrote:

Hi, Takashi Iwai.

> well, i personally am not against the current preempt mechanism from
> the viewpoint of the audio-processing purpose :)  the implementation
> is relatively clean and easy.

Agreed.

> i think the first one is needed for preemptive kernel, too.
> with these patches, also 0.1-0.2ms RT-latency is achieved.

Ohh, interesting.  I'll give these a spin with PREEMPT=y and see.  Thank
you!

	Robert Love


-
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/