Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

# Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:45:32 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dale Amon: "Question about LFS patches for 2.2.x"
- Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"

On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 07:16:13PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > - Use Linus' trick of a multi threaded UP kernel using
> > > SMP locks (2.5 material), also hated by Larry/Victor.
> >
> > I don't hate it at all. I think it will add serious overhead, but
> > it is a clean design that can be turned off.
>
> It will have about the same overhead as running a RTLinux kernel only that
> better latency is also available to user space.

Nope, you need a lot more locks in kernel structures (all spin_lock which
are noop ATM on UP will cost you)

-Andi

-
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: Dale Amon: "Question about LFS patches for 2.2.x"
- Previous message: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux"