public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: Bob McElrath <mcelrath+linux@draal.physics.wisc.edu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: low-latency patches
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:00:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011006150024.C2625@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011006010519.A749@draal.physics.wisc.edu> <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3BBEA8CF.D2A4BAA8@zip.com.au>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 11:46:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Bob McElrath wrote:
> > 2) Will either of these ever be merged into Linus' kernel (2.5?)
> 
> Controversial.  My vague feeling is that they shouldn't.  Here's
> why:
> 
> The great majority of users and applications really only need
> a mostly-better-than-ten-millisecond latency.  This gives good
> responsiveness for user interfaces and media streaming.  This
> can trivially be achieved with the current kernel via a thirty line
> patch (which _should_ be applied to 2.4.x.  I need to get off my
> butt).
> 
> But the next rank of applications - instrumentation, control systems,
> media production sytems, etc require 500-1000 usec latencies, and
> the group of people who require this is considerably smaller.  And their
> requirements are quite aggressive.  And maintaining that performance
> with either approach is a fair bit of work and impacts (by definition)
> the while kernel.  That's all an argument for keeping it offstream.
> 

And exactly how is low latency going to hurt the majority?

This reminds me of when 4GB on ia32 was enough, or 16 bit UIDs, or...

Should those have been left out too just because the people who needed them
were few?

If the requirements for manufacturing control, or audio processing, or etc
will make my home box, or my server work better then why not include it?


  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-10-06 22:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-10-06  6:05 low-latency patches Bob McElrath
2001-10-06  6:46 ` Andrew Morton
2001-10-06 16:33   ` Daniel Phillips
2001-10-06 20:42   ` Bob McElrath
2001-10-06 22:00   ` Mike Fedyk [this message]
2001-10-06 22:22     ` Robert Love
2001-10-08 12:47     ` Helge Hafting
2001-10-08 17:41       ` george anzinger
2001-10-08 18:24         ` Andrew Morton
2001-10-08 18:36           ` Alan Cox
2001-10-07  1:12   ` Robert Love
2001-10-07  2:38     ` Jeffrey W. Baker
2001-10-07  2:55       ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:36 ` Robert Love
2001-10-06 22:46   ` Mike Fedyk
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-10 15:27 David Balazic
2001-03-08 13:06 Andrew Morton

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=20011006150024.C2625@mikef-linux.matchmail.com \
    --to=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcelrath+linux@draal.physics.wisc.edu \
    /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