From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Interbench real time benchmark results
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:32:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050719223216.GA4194@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507200816.11386.kernel@kolivas.org>
* Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> Not entirely what some would expect. Very little difference under low
> loads, but the maximum latencies exhibited are about the same at
> 300us. However they hare under different workloads. With these
> worklods, on this hardware, running these real time simulations there
> is not a convincing argument for CONFIG-PREEMPT. Note that running
> interbench with the non-real time benchmarks also does not show a
> convincing reason for preempt.
while i do like the PREEMPT_RT results, i think we need to do two more
things to have total confidence in the numbers:
- i think we'll need to increase the number of sample points, by both
increasing the frequency of samples, and by lengthening the
test-time - even if just for a single testrun. Some of the worst-case
latencies i care about in PREEMPT_RT trigger only once every couple
of million interrupts (!). For human interactivity we probably dont
care that much though.
- many of the worst-case latencies relate to some sort of extreme
situation within a particular algorithm. E.g. lots of tasks being
around. Do this for example:
hackbench 50
and Ctrl-Z it after a couple of seconds. You'll see a 1msec (or
larger) blip.
or, fill up swapspace, so that the swap allocation map gets filled
up.
- networking is another frequent source of latencies - it might make
sense to add a workload doing lots of socket IO. (localhost might be
enough, but not for everything)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-19 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-19 22:16 Interbench real time benchmark results Con Kolivas
2005-07-19 22:32 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-07-20 0:23 ` Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 1:04 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-20 1:22 ` Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 1:31 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-07-20 1:45 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-21 4:48 ` 2.6.12 PREEMPT_RT && PPC john cooper
2005-07-21 11:45 ` Gene Heskett
2005-07-21 12:22 ` Gene Heskett
2005-07-21 13:13 ` john cooper
2005-07-26 12:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-26 14:44 ` K.R. Foley
2005-07-26 14:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-26 15:06 ` K.R. Foley
2005-07-20 0:23 ` Interbench real time benchmark results Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 4:59 ` Lee Revell
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=20050719223216.GA4194@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.