Non-Deathmatch: Preempt v. Low-Latency Patch
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."
Yeah.. When I read this on OSNews, I couldn't help thinking this was really old news.
Now to see it on
.
Swamp land in Florida!!?!? Like the kind I could build a really successful theme park on? Cool!!
Wait.. Must stop feeding trolls... ahhh!! Can't help myself.. ARGGGHHH!!! AIYEEEE!!
.
...definitely sucks ass in Linux. I don't know if it is better or worse in other OSes, but we have several dual processor machines and two quad Xeon machines at work running Linux, and it seems as though if the first processor is running at max capacity, then you're just kind of shit outta luck if you try to start a process--it sometimes takes as 5-10 seconds before it'll even notice you've tried to run something and assign it to another processor that isn't doing anything.
Does anyone else have this problem? I'm hoping it's just some kind of dumbass configuration mistake on my part and not just the way it is...
IT groupies?
Do they like.. travel around with you, worshiping the ground you walk on, and fetch your beer while you hack the kernel?
Fsck IE! I'm using Lynx count me among the 5% and 30% respectively.
Of course, I do feel kindof naked without all the pretty pictures.. Wait, what are we arguing about again? Ohh, you said something irrelevant and stupid, so I laughed at you. Then I posted this stupid message. Laugh at me.
.