From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrea Arcangeli Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 07:43:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [rtl] Low-latency patches working GREAT (<2.9ms audio latency), Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sound@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: >on a uniprocessor. sct pointed out that reschedule_idle >is very conservative about setting need_resched and this makes Ingo >correct when he stated that need_resched>0 means that we really do need >to resched. I'd be happier with some big database tests, and I really think IMHO this is not the point at all. need_resched = 1 means you _have_ to reschedule ASAP careless about the scheduler algorithm at all. >that database performance should be checked before any such change goes >into the kernel, but for now, I was flat out wrong. If honouring the need_resched bit is decreasing performances than it means you _want_ to change the scheduler and not the code that honour the need_resched bit. Of course I am supposing the checks itself are not the source of the slowdown. Andrea