From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Revell Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:51:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1164905470.12607.71.camel@mindpipe> References: <2f14bf623344.456de60a@fnal.gov> <20061130093329.GA4645@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Wenji Wu , David Miller , akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:18875 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1759271AbWK3Qug (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:50:36 -0500 To: Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: <20061130093329.GA4645@infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 09:33 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 07:56:58PM -0600, Wenji Wu wrote: > > Yes, when CONFIG_PREEMPT is disabled, the "problem" won't happen. That is why I put "for 2.6 desktop, low-latency desktop" in the uploaded paper. This "problem" happens in the 2.6 Desktop and Low-latency Desktop. > > CONFIG_PREEMPT is only for people that are in for the feeling. There is no > real world advtantage to it and we should probably remove it again. There certainly is a real world advantage for many applications. Of course it would be better if the latency requirements could be met without kernel preemption but that's not the case now. Lee