andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de
Tue Apr 4 09:46:34 CDT 2006
On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:36:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 April 2006 00:34, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > And this all should work perfectly well with NON-soft-realtime scheduling,
> > as clearly said before.
> > Well, in theory, at least...
> Andi just out of interest, how does normal scheduling on current ck
> (2.6.16-ck3) perform with this?
Hmm, difficult :-\
I don't have any game candidate here, and frankly I don't even have a current
I'd think it's much easier for someone with such a Wine testcase to use a new
- locate the .config file of the currently installed kernel package
- get 2.6.16, patch to 2.6.16-ck3
- run "make oldconfig" to answer all differences from current kernel
to 2.6.16-ck3 only
- make bzImage modules modules_install
- (update bootloader)
About my sys call preemption latency rantings:
It would be very useful to experiment with various CONFIG_PREEMPT settings here.
And if some anomalies turn up, then it might be useful to add Ingo Molnar's
latency tracing patch to a kernel and debug it further.
Stuff like that really shouldn't happen given that many people (among
those also Windows core developers) say that our scheduling and thread creation
performance usually beats Windows XP hands down.
GNU/Linux. It's not the software that's free, it's you.
More information about the wine-devel