From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266748AbUHaGdW (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:33:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266821AbUHaGcq (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:32:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:20399 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266753AbUHaGaT (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:30:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:31:51 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mark_H_Johnson@Raytheon.com Cc: "K.R. Foley" , linux-kernel , Felipe Alfaro Solana , Daniel Schmitt , Lee Revell Subject: Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q5 Message-ID: <20040831063151.GA29795@elte.hu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Mark_H_Johnson@Raytheon.com wrote: > >regarding this particular latency, could you try the attached patch > >ontop of -Q5? It turns the ->poll() loop into separate, individually > >preemptable iterations instead of one batch of processing. In theory > >this should result in latency being lower regardless of the > >netdev_max_backlog value. > > First time - stopped during init script - when trying to start a network > service (automount). in theory the patch is more or less equivalent to setting netdev_max_backlog to a value of 1 - could you try that setting too? (with the patch unapplied.) Ingo