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 >
