Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: Low Latency Patch

# Re: Low Latency Patch

John Alvord (jalvo@mbay.net)
Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:10:40 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on"
- Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [patch] Remove the magic entries from /proc/mounts"
- Next in thread: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
- Reply: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"

On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:

> Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> writes:
>
> > On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > >
> > > This thread is all about fixing theses latency problem, however,
> > > understand that the patch you are talking about aren't the right
> > > way to do.
> >
> > So we should not add any functionality that isn't optimally implimented?
> > Gee, I think that eliminates about 98% of the kernel, and for that matter just
> > about every OS in existance.
> >
>
> It is implemented the *wrong way* and could cause *big*
> problem on the long term...

Didn't Linus' comments yesterday contradict that statement. As I read them
he agreed that the copy_to_user and copy_from_user functions should be
fixed and selective (fully explained) pre-emption points added. So the
implmentation was right but the problem was the massive sprinkling of
unexplained preemption points was the problem.

Or did I misunderstand his comments?

john alvord

-
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: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on"
- Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [patch] Remove the magic entries from /proc/mounts"
- Next in thread: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
- Reply: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"