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
next parent 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