LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: J Sloan <>
To: linux-kernel <>
Subject: [Fwd: low-latency patches]
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 23:52:28 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1997 bytes --]

From: J Sloan <>
To: Bob McElrath <>
Subject: Re: low-latency patches
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 23:51:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob McElrath wrote:

> It seems there are two low-latency projects out there.  The one by Robert Love:
> and the original one:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the former uses spinlocks to know when it can
> preempt the kernel, and the latter just tries to reduce latency by adding
> (un)conditional_schedule and placing it at key places in the kernel?
> My questions are:
> 1) Which of these two projects has better latency performance?  Has anyone
>     benchmarked them against each other?
> 2) Will either of these ever be merged into Linus' kernel (2.5?)
> 3) Is there a possibility that either of these will make it to non-x86
>     platforms?  (for me: alpha)  The second patch looks like it would
>     straightforwardly work on any arch, but the for it is only in
>     arch/i386.  Robert Love's patches would need some arch-specific asm...

In my experience with them, the Andrew Morton patches
provide a "smoother" interactive feel, great for things like
online gaming (quake 3 arena, etc), however the Robert
Love patches are simpler, seem less intrusive, and I've
had better luck with them on smp, highmem boxes.

(just IMHO) I like Andrew's patches on (up) workstations,
and Robert's on (smp) servers, with some grey area of
overlap -

I'm hardly the person to say, but the rml patches would
seem more likely to go in sooner, if at all.  I'd love to see
both remain an option.



             reply	other threads:[~2001-10-06  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-10-06  6:52 J Sloan [this message]
2001-10-07 18:07 ` george anzinger
2001-10-07 18:14   ` Bob McElrath
2001-10-07 19:59     ` george anzinger
2001-10-07 20:20       ` Bob McElrath

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [Fwd: low-latency patches]' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).