Re: Tweak Latency on Intel ATOM

[Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1049 bytes --]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:32:54 +0100
Max Müller <mxmr@gmx.net> wrote:
 
> >
> > I'd say you're doing pretty good keeping under 50us. You might want to
> > try it under a heavier load than the shell script you've been running.
> > If you don't want to fool with rteval, try kicking off a kernel compile
> > in another window like this:
> >
> > $ while true; do make -j4 clean bzImage modules; done
> >
> > and then run cyclictest. A kernel compile with parallel jobs (-j) is a
> > good overall load of computation and I/O.
> >
> >   
> 
> I tested now like you told me with irqbalance and cpuspeed services 
> disabled. I hope i made the right for disabling irqbalance, i used the 
> kernel parameter acpi_no_irqbalance. Is this correct? Unfortunately the 
> results were nearly equal as before.

I don't think you're going to get much better results on the Atom. I
have an MSI Nettop box with the dual-core version and I saw about the
same results as you.

What sort of scheduling deadlines are you trying to meet? 

Clark

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]