Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

J Sloan
2002-01-15T01:31:55Z

Daniel Phillips wrote:

>On January 13, 2002 08:35 pm, J Sloan wrote:
>
>>The problem here is that when people report
>>that the low latency patch works better for them
>>than the preempt patch, they aren't talking about
>>bebnchmarking the time to compile a kernel, they
>>are talking about interactive feel and smoothness.
>>
>
>Nobody is claiming the low latency patch works better than
>-preempt+lock_break, only that low latency can equal -preempt+lock_break,
>which is a claim I'm skeptical of, but oh well.
>
AFAICT Alan Cox et al are saying that low-latency
gives better latency than -preempt, but that if lock-break
is added to -preempt, the results are basically the same.

IOW lock-break + preempt =~ low-latency as far as the
latency question is concerned.

>>I've no agenda other than wanting to see linux
>>as an attractive option for the multimedia and
>>gaming crowds - and in my experience, the low
>>latency patches simply give a much smoother
>>feel and a more pleasant experience. Kernel
>>compilation time is the farthest thing from my
>>mind when e.g. playing Q3A!
>>
>
>You need to read the thread *way* more closely ;-)
>
Admittedly my observations have been more from
an "end-user" point of view, because at the end
of the day, what I experience while using Linux as
a multimedia/gaming platform is worth more than a
barrel of benchmarks - and while kernel compilation
time is of interest, it is just _one_ benchmark in the
greater scheme of things. (not to mention that that
benchmark result could probably be matched in a
non -preempt kernel via /proc tuning)

>>I'd be happy to check out the preempt patch
>>again and see if anything's changed, if the
>>problem of tux+preempt oopsing has been
>>dealt with -
>>
>
>Right, useful.
>
See my previous reply, or the archives -

Regards,

jjs