On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 11:19 +0100, kus Kusche Klaus wrote: > For a non-full preemption kernel, your patch moves the 500 us > piece of code from kernel to thread context, so it really > improves things. But is 500 us something to worry about in a > non-full preemption kernel?
Yes, absolutely. Once exit_mmap (a latency regression which was introduced in 2.6.14) and rt_run_flush/rt_garbage_collect (which have always been problematic) are fixed, 500usecs will stick out like a sore thumb even on a regular PREEMPT kernel. Also, you should be able to capture this latency in /proc/latency trace by configuring an -rt kernel with PREEMPT_DESKTOP and hard/softirq preemption disabled. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
