On 2018-07-25 06:57:42 [+], Vakul Garg wrote:
> I tested this patch. It helped but didn't regain the performance to previous
> level.
> Are there more files remaining to be fixed? (In your original patch series
> for adding
> preemptability check, there were lot more files changed than this s
On 2018-07-25 07:04:55 [+], Vakul Garg wrote:
> >
> > What about PREEMPT_NONE (server)?
>
> Why not have best of both the worlds :)
the NEON code gets interrupted because another tasks wants to schedule
and the scheduler allows. With "low latency desktop" this gets right
done away. The lower
On 2018-07-25 11:54:53 [+0200], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Indeed. OTOH, if the -rt people (Sebastian?) turn up and say that a
> 1000 cycle limit to the quantum of work performed with preemption
> disabled is unreasonably low, we can increase the yield block counts
> and approach the optimal numbers a
On 2018-07-26 09:25:40 [+0200], Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Thanks a lot.
>
> So 20 us ~= 20,000 cycles on my 1 GHz Cortex-A53, and if I am
> understanding you correctly, you wouldn't mind the quantum of work to
> be in the order 16,000 cycles or even substantially more?
I have currently that one box
