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

# Re: Low Latency Patch

Yoann Vandoorselaere (yoann@mandrakesoft.com)
01 Jul 2000 22:35:34 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Joel Fuster: "udma66 and AMD-750?"
- Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: fs loopback dead-lock-up"
- In reply to: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: Low Latency Patch"

Gregory Maxwell <greg@linuxpower.cx> writes:

> On 1 Jul 2000, Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > <quote>
> > For example, let's say that something uses an O(n^3) algorithm, and
> > to "overcome" the expense of this thing we add scheduling points in it.
> > That's the easy way to do it. But maybe the right thing to do is to
> > realize that the code may be badly structured in the first place?
> > </quote>
> >
> > The low latency patch only add scheduling point all over the place.
>
[...]

>
> As I understand it, Linuses goal is to provided a useful and mailtainable
> system.

Yop, he don't want to accept hackish code when something clean can be done.

> He's has decided that he wants to make it useful for audio tasks
> and he's willing to impliment rechedule hacks where there is no
> alternative (i.e. no complexity reduction can be performed).

Right, but that isn't only audio task,
think to video (especially dvd) and i'm sure their is other.

    --
    		-- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/
     It is well known that M$ product don't make a free() after a malloc(),
    the unix community wish them good luck for their future development.

    -
    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: Joel Fuster: "udma66 and AMD-750?"
- Previous message: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: fs loopback dead-lock-up"
- In reply to: Gregory Maxwell: "Re: Low Latency Patch"