On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-01-08 at 15:59, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > And while I'm enumerating differences, the preemptable kernel (in this > > incarnation) has a slight per-spinlock cost, while the non-preemptable kernel > > has the fixed cost of checking for rescheduling, at intervals throughout all > > 'interesting' kernel code, essentially all long-running loops. But by clever > > coding it's possible to finesse away almost all the overhead of those loop > > checks, so in the end, the non-preemptible low-latency patch has a slight > > efficiency advantage here, with emphasis on 'slight'. > > True (re spinlock weight in preemptible kernel) but how is that not > comparable to explicit scheduling points? Worse, the preempt-kernel > typically does its preemption on a branch on return to interrupt > (similar to user space's preemption). What better time to check and > reschedule if needed? I'm not sure that preempt and low latency really are attacking the same problem. What I am finding is the LL improves overall performance when a process does something which is physically slow, like a find in a directory with 20k files. On the other hand PK makes the response of the system better to changes. In particular I see the DNS servers which have other work running, even backups or reports, are more responsive with PK, as are usenet news servers. I find it hard to measure "feels faster" with either approach, although like the supreme court "I know it when I see it." I'd like to hope that some of each will get in the main kernel, PK has been stable for me for a while, LL has never been unstable but I've run it less. -- bill davidsen <davidsen _at_ tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusableRobert Love <rml _at_ tech9.net>
- Prev by Date: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Next by Date: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Previous by thread: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Next by thread: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]