From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:51:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:51:16 -0400 Received: from mx2.utanet.at ([195.70.253.46]:18863 "EHLO smtp1.utaiop.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 19:50:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3BA94B2E.99FABD43@grips.com> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 03:49:34 +0200 From: Gerold Jury Organization: Grips X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.10-pre10-xfs i686) X-Accept-Language: de-AT, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Love CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Feedback on preemptible kernel patch xfs In-Reply-To: <1000581501.32705.46.camel@phantasy> <3BA72A80.6020706@grips.com> <1000853560.19365.13.camel@phantasy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Robert First the good news. Even my most ugly ideas where not able to crash your preemtible 2.4.10-pre10-xfs But, to be sure i repeated everything, neither latencytest-0.42 nor my own tests could find a difference with or without the preemptible patch. I do not know if i can expect a lower latency at this stage of development. A maximum of 15 msec latency with all the stress, i managed to put on the machine is not that bad anyway. The CPU is a 1.1GHz Athlon. I forgot to mention this. I will continue to test the preempt patches. Do you want me to test anything special ? Best Regards Gerold