public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dan Maas" <dmaas@dcine.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Low latency for recent kernels
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:48:42 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <036a01c1a48a$0480da40$1d01a8c0@allyourbase> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa.h7o6q7v.lha792@ifi.uio.no> <fa.divhjuv.3guviq@ifi.uio.no>

> I'm a little surprised that desktop users do notice significant
> benefits with all the latency/preempt patches.  If you actually
> instrument the kernel's behaviour, the stalls are in fact
> quite small and infrequent.

Havoc Pennington, Soeren Sandmann, and I have been investigating causes of
UI unresponsiveness in Xfree86/Linux. I would agree that in most situations,
on a mostly-idle machine, low-latency/preempt patches should *not* enhance
the overall feel of the desktop. (if they do measurably increase
responsiveness, then that would suggest inefficiencies in X/the WM/the X
client - a definite possibility, of course).

Two situations where I would expect low-latency/preemption to have a
positive effect on responsiveness are 1) when the system is under heavy CPU
and disk load (e.g. kernel compile); due to the interactive tasks being able
to run earlier/more often, and 2) when performing UI operations that depend
on tight synchronization between X/the WM/the X client, particularly opaque
window resizing. (my theory is that low-latency/preemption results in the
CPU switching more rapidly or evenly among these processes, reducing the
perceptible "lag" between the client window and its WM frame)

Regards,
Dan


       reply	other threads:[~2002-01-24  3:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <fa.h7o6q7v.lha792@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.divhjuv.3guviq@ifi.uio.no>
2002-01-24  3:48   ` Dan Maas [this message]
2002-01-24  4:17     ` Low latency for recent kernels Robert Love
2002-01-24  4:20       ` Glendon Gross
2002-01-24  4:28         ` Robert Love
2002-01-24  6:34           ` Glendon Gross
2002-01-23 14:16 rwhron
2002-01-23 19:24 ` J Sloan
2002-01-23 19:37   ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-23 21:04     ` Mauricio Nuñez
2002-01-23 21:37       ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-23 22:18         ` Daniel Phillips
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-22 21:39 Louis Garcia
2002-01-22 21:46 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-22 22:00   ` J Sloan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='036a01c1a48a$0480da40$1d01a8c0@allyourbase' \
    --to=dmaas@dcine.com \
    --cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox