Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

[Lee Revell]

On 3/29/07, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:06:41PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> > Until someone fixes all the places in the kernel where scheduling can
> > be held off for tens of milliseconds, CONFIG_PREEMPT will be an
> > absolute requirement for many applications like audio and gaming.
>
> There's nothing wrong with CONFIG_PREEMPT for those users. We have
> a few other performance concessions activated with CONFIG_PREEMPT on.
> I think a usual upper of a few miliseconds (especially for SMP) is
> reasonable for a non preempt kernel.

This is within reach - the only major offender left is
rt_secret_rebuild (and possibly other areas of the route cache
handling).  Eric Dumazet had some suggestions to fix it, but the
details are beyond my area of expertise.

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/