All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Doug Niehaus <niehaus@ittc.ku.edu>,
	Benedikt Spranger <bene@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: High resolution timers and BH processing on -RT
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:43:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050128044301.GD29751@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1106871192.21196.152.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de>


* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> Some numbers to make this more transparent.
> 
> Machine: PIII Celeron 333MHz
> RT - T0: 1ms cyclic
> RT - T1: 2ms cyclic
> ....
> 
> Load average is ~4.0 for all tests. The numbers are maximum deviation
> from the timeline in microseconds. Test time was ~60 minutes for each
> szenario.
> 
> Running all timers in high resolution mode (ksoftirqd) results in:
> [T0  Prio:  60]  2123
> [T1  Prio:  59]  2556
> [T2  Prio:  58]  2882
> [T3  Prio:  57]  2993
> [T4  Prio:  56]  2888
> 
> Running all timers in high resolution mode (seperated timer softirqd
> PRIO=70) results in:
> [T0  Prio:  60]  423
> [T1  Prio:  59]  372
> [T2  Prio:  58]  756
> [T3  Prio:  57]  802
> [T4  Prio:  56]  1208

is this due to algorithmic/PIT-programming overhead, or due to the noise
introduced by other, non-hard-RT timers? I'd guess the later from the
looks of it, but did your test introduce such noise (via networking and
application workloads?).

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-28  4:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-28  0:13 High resolution timers and BH processing on -RT Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28  4:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-28  8:20   ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28  8:24     ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28  8:30       ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28  8:47         ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28 18:34           ` George Anzinger
2005-01-28 18:51             ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28 18:53             ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-31  9:12             ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050128044301.GD29751@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=bene@linutronix.de \
    --cc=george@mvista.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=niehaus@ittc.ku.edu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.