We don't run bonnie every time, but yes, we run it occasionally to see
that things are still ok. And when they aren't, we try to fix them. I
think the same should be true of low latency.
I'd be quite happy to apply the copy_to/from_user() part, for example, and
then let's see what the other problem-spots are, and how they should be
properly fixed. The copy_to/from_user() case is quite simple to
understand, and there really aren't that many alternatives to handling it.
> Linus, to remove my last doubts:
> (I think I will write a FAQ out of all stuff I collected today)
>
> assume someone rolls out a clean low latency approach for 2.4 ,
> would you accept the patches or would you delay the stuff to 2.5 ?
> (I have no idea if it is a big amount of work)
I can apply the obvious stuff today. But it would need to be a clean
patch, and I suspect that the only part that I would consider truly
obvious would be the user copy part. And adding a test for "need_resched"
does imply not inlining them any more, it's already border-line, and the
re-scheduling makes it obviously so (by the time you can potentially call
"schedule()", the compiler has to save/restore all the call-clobbered
registers anyway, so 90% of the advantages of inlining have been
destroyed, making the disadvantages like icache footprint etc clear).
Note that regardless of _what_ the problem is, I always prefer incremental
patches anyway. Maybe people in the end can convince me that every single
scheduling point makes 100% sense, and is not a hack at all but a natural
thing. Even if that were the case, I'd like to get the thing in smaller
and explainable pieces..
Linus
-
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/