* PREEMPT_RCU on UP
@ 2009-10-27 16:10 Patrik Kluba
2009-10-30 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Patrik Kluba @ 2009-10-27 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi!
Does the preemptible RCU implementation have better performance (lower
latency?) than the classic RCU implementation on embedded uniprocessor
systems? I can't find any information about this in Documentation/.
Regards,
Patrik Kluba
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PREEMPT_RCU-on-UP-tp26080408p26080408.html
Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: PREEMPT_RCU on UP
2009-10-27 16:10 PREEMPT_RCU on UP Patrik Kluba
@ 2009-10-30 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2009-10-30 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrik Kluba; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 09:10:02AM -0700, Patrik Kluba wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Does the preemptible RCU implementation have better performance (lower
> latency?) than the classic RCU implementation on embedded uniprocessor
> systems? I can't find any information about this in Documentation/.
I would expect that you would get the best latencies on UP by using
the -rt patchset and preemptible RCU. I don't know that anyone has
carefully measured the combination of vanilla CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel
and preemptible RCU on UP.
Thanx, Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-30 22:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-27 16:10 PREEMPT_RCU on UP Patrik Kluba
2009-10-30 22:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox