Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: kernel 2.4.0-test2 latencies benchmarked ... (still bad)

# Re: kernel 2.4.0-test2 latencies benchmarked ... (still bad)

Chris Noe (stiker@northlink.com)
Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:30:13 -0700 (MST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Benno Senoner wrote:

[...]
> for comparison same box on 2.2.10 + Ingo's low latency patches:
> http://www.gardena.net/benno/linux/audio/audio3x128-cpu80/3x128.html
>
> this kernel delivers up to 60times lower latencies than 2-4.0-test2 (100msec vs
> 1.5ms ) :-)
[...]

Damn, that is impressive when contrasted with the 2.4.0-test graphs.

I certainly hope that those pic's will shake someone up enough to get
something done about it. I'm curious, have you seen any funky side effects
at all with your 2.2.10+lowlatency kernel?

Has mingo been working on any low latency type patches for 2.4? (I haven't
seen any lately, and obviously they didn't go into the mainline)

Chris Noe
(stiker@northlink.com)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Philipp Rumpf: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
- Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"