From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Xander Huff <xander.huff@ni.com>
Cc: jic23@kernel.org, knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de,
pmeerw@pmeerw.net, michal.simek@xilinx.com,
soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, ben.shelton@ni.com,
joe.hershberger@ni.com, joshc@ni.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Convert to raw spinlock
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 23:17:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150518211728.GC4275@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55552570.5050407@ni.com>
* Xander Huff | 2015-05-14 17:45:04 [-0500]:
>With no other processes running, I got the following results after a
>couple of hours on one of our devices:
>
>admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.07 0.12 1/176 1473
>
>T: 0 ( 1373) P:98 I:1000 C:6503872 Min: 9 Act: 13 Avg: 13 Max: 51
>T: 1 ( 1374) P:98 I:1500 C:4335914 Min: 9 Act: 12 Avg: 13 Max: 49
>
>With a VI reading all default handles (raw, offset, scale,
>sampling_frequency) in /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:device0 constantly in
>a while loop, I got the following results after a couple hours on the
>same device:
>
>admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 6.93 7.30 7.47 3/182 1530
>
>T: 0 ( 1487) P:98 I:1000 C:4497008 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 21 Max: 69
>T: 1 ( 1488) P:98 I:1500 C:2998005 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 22 Max: 59
So there is an increase. And there is even a for-loop and I don't know
how deep it is nested. Anyway, do you think it is worth it or would it
be better to get rid of the raw-locks and simply push everything into
threaded context?
Sebastian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Xander Huff <xander.huff-acOepvfBmUk@public.gmane.org>
Cc: jic23-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
knaack.h-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org,
lars-Qo5EllUWu/uELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org,
pmeerw-jW+XmwGofnusTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org,
michal.simek-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
soren.brinkmann-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
linux-iio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
linux-rt-users-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
ben.shelton-acOepvfBmUk@public.gmane.org,
joe.hershberger-acOepvfBmUk@public.gmane.org,
joshc-acOepvfBmUk@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Convert to raw spinlock
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 23:17:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150518211728.GC4275@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55552570.5050407-acOepvfBmUk@public.gmane.org>
* Xander Huff | 2015-05-14 17:45:04 [-0500]:
>With no other processes running, I got the following results after a
>couple of hours on one of our devices:
>
>admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.07 0.12 1/176 1473
>
>T: 0 ( 1373) P:98 I:1000 C:6503872 Min: 9 Act: 13 Avg: 13 Max: 51
>T: 1 ( 1374) P:98 I:1500 C:4335914 Min: 9 Act: 12 Avg: 13 Max: 49
>
>With a VI reading all default handles (raw, offset, scale,
>sampling_frequency) in /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:device0 constantly in
>a while loop, I got the following results after a couple hours on the
>same device:
>
>admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 6.93 7.30 7.47 3/182 1530
>
>T: 0 ( 1487) P:98 I:1000 C:4497008 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 21 Max: 69
>T: 1 ( 1488) P:98 I:1500 C:2998005 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 22 Max: 59
So there is an increase. And there is even a for-loop and I don't know
how deep it is nested. Anyway, do you think it is worth it or would it
be better to get rid of the raw-locks and simply push everything into
threaded context?
Sebastian
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: bigeasy@linutronix.de (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Convert to raw spinlock
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 23:17:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150518211728.GC4275@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55552570.5050407@ni.com>
* Xander Huff | 2015-05-14 17:45:04 [-0500]:
>With no other processes running, I got the following results after a
>couple of hours on one of our devices:
>
>admin at Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.07 0.12 1/176 1473
>
>T: 0 ( 1373) P:98 I:1000 C:6503872 Min: 9 Act: 13 Avg: 13 Max: 51
>T: 1 ( 1374) P:98 I:1500 C:4335914 Min: 9 Act: 12 Avg: 13 Max: 49
>
>With a VI reading all default handles (raw, offset, scale,
>sampling_frequency) in /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:device0 constantly in
>a while loop, I got the following results after a couple hours on the
>same device:
>
>admin at Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98
># /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
>policy: fifo: loadavg: 6.93 7.30 7.47 3/182 1530
>
>T: 0 ( 1487) P:98 I:1000 C:4497008 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 21 Max: 69
>T: 1 ( 1488) P:98 I:1500 C:2998005 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 22 Max: 59
So there is an increase. And there is even a for-loop and I don't know
how deep it is nested. Anyway, do you think it is worth it or would it
be better to get rid of the raw-locks and simply push everything into
threaded context?
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-18 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-07 15:38 [PATCH] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Convert to raw spinlock Xander Huff
2015-05-07 15:38 ` Xander Huff
2015-05-07 15:38 ` Xander Huff
2015-05-14 17:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-05-14 17:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-05-14 17:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-05-14 22:45 ` Xander Huff
2015-05-14 22:45 ` Xander Huff
2015-05-14 22:45 ` Xander Huff
2015-05-18 21:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2015-05-18 21:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-05-18 21:17 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-05-23 11:36 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-05-23 11:36 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-06-07 15:29 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-06-07 15:29 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-06-07 15:29 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-06-08 14:44 ` Xander Huff
2015-06-08 14:44 ` Xander Huff
2015-06-08 14:44 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-08 21:38 ` [PATCH v2] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Push interrupts into threaded context Xander Huff
2015-07-08 21:38 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-08 21:38 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-09 5:03 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-07-15 15:57 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-15 15:57 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-15 15:57 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-20 23:14 ` [PATCH v3] " Xander Huff
2015-07-20 23:14 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-20 23:14 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-24 12:38 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-07-24 12:38 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-07-24 12:38 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-03 20:18 ` Xander Huff
2015-08-03 20:18 ` Xander Huff
2015-08-03 20:18 ` Xander Huff
2015-08-04 8:01 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-04 8:01 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-04 8:01 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-11 23:00 ` [PATCH v4] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Push interrupts into hardirq context Xander Huff
2015-08-11 23:00 ` Xander Huff
2015-08-12 15:17 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-12 15:17 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-12 15:17 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-12 16:33 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-08-12 16:33 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-08-12 16:33 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-08-15 19:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-08-15 19:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-08-15 19:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2015-08-04 5:34 ` [PATCH v3] iio: adc: xilinx-xadc: Push interrupts into threaded context Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-08-04 5:34 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-08-04 8:05 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-04 8:05 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-04 8:05 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2015-08-07 3:55 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-08-07 3:55 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-08-07 3:55 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2015-07-14 14:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-07-14 14:28 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2015-07-15 15:59 ` Xander Huff
2015-07-15 15:59 ` Xander Huff
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=20150518211728.GC4275@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=ben.shelton@ni.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=joe.hershberger@ni.com \
--cc=joshc@ni.com \
--cc=knaack.h@gmx.de \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=pmeerw@pmeerw.net \
--cc=soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com \
--cc=xander.huff@ni.com \
/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.