Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Non-Deathmatch: Preempt v. Low-Latency Patch

Posted by timothy on from the floor-wax-and-dessert-topping dept.

LiquidPC writes: "In this whitepaper on Linux Scheduler Latency, Clark Williams of Red Hat compares the performance of two popular ways to improve kernel Linux preemption latency -- the preemption patch pioneered by MontaVista and the low-latency patch pioneered by Ingo Molnar -- and discovers that the best approach might be a combination of both."

3 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Oooooh by NiftyNews · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't miss the thrilling link to the debate on whether it is PreemptAble or PreemptIble...

    --
    ------
    Today's Top Deals
  2. Interrupt priorities by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 4, Funny
    Most RTOS's prioritize device interrupts so that important interrupts ("shut down the reactor NOW!") are serviced first and lower priority interrupts ("time to make the doughnuts") are serviced later.


    Clearly, most RTOS designers have their priorities backwards.



    Mmmm, donuts.

    --
    Search 2010 Gen Con events
  3. Re:One good way to reduce kernel latency.. by clone304 · · Score: 4, Funny


    Honestly, I'm not trying to troll you here, but why would you WANT to run a *nix kernel on hardware that's responsible for engine timing? Especially when you apparently already have tech that works. Is the idea just to make vehicles that much harder for people to maintain? The day my mechanic keeps a sysadmin on duty so he patch my buggy Linux 4.5.3 ECU is the day I put a gun to my head and pull the trigger.

    Aside from that. Way to inform the masses.