14 Feb
2004
14 Feb
'04
12:22 a.m.
My understanding is that it is best to apply both. I have run both the
preempt and lowlatency patches on kernels ranging from 2.4.16 ( at least
, probably earlier) through 2.4.22 with very good results.
In the 2.6.x kernel series both sets of patches are included as
standard. Most of the lowlatency patches (if i understand correctly)
were merged into the 2.6.1 code base. The preempt patch has been in the
kernel as a configuration option since sometime in the 2.5.x development
series.
-Eric Rz
Chris Metzler wrote:
Hi. I've read the stuff on the LAD website about
the two low-latency
patch options for the 2.4 kernels -- Robert Love's preempt patch and
Andrew Morton's low-latency patch. Each are described as having
good and bad points in comparison. The way in which it's discussed
seems to suggest that one should choose one or the other; nowhere is
discussed whether it's a good or bad idea to apply both. But that
seems to be possible; the Debian package page for AM's low-latency
kernel patch indicates that it's compatible with the preempt patch.
So I guess I'm looking for advice about this. Are they indeed
compatible? Is there some reason why applying *both* would be a bad
thing?
Thanks for any info.
-c