From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43565170.4030707@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:00:16 +0200 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Testing the adeos-ipipe-2.6.13-ppc-1.0-00.patch References: <1CFEB358338412458B21FAA0D78FE86D4F0E32@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1CFEB358338412458B21FAA0D78FE86D4F0E32@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fillod Stephane Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org Fillod Stephane wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > [..] > >>The last significant change between -00 and -01 is actually the one related to >>the fork pressure (others are cosmetic ones aimed at better sharing stuff with >>the blackfin port). The patch below against -02 removes it. > > > Here is the result of tests with version 1.0-02+ (entry.S patch) on e500: > > load: ~1 minute ping -f, one run of calibrator chewing 64MiB. > > SWITCH without load: > RTH| lat min| lat avg| lat max| lost > RTD| 3660| 3690| 8070| 0 1.0-00 > RTD| 4620| 4740| 8730| 0 1.0-01 > RTD| 4620| 4740| 8190| 0 1.0-02 > RTD| 4650| 4740| 7980| 0 1.0-02+ > > KLATENCY with load: > RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun| > RTS| -7350| -5715| 6420| 0| 00:03:17 1.0-00 > RTS| -6150| -4384| 12180| 0| 00:03:13 1.0-01 > RTS| -6150| -4183| 12480| 0| 00:03:38 1.0-02 > RTS| -6120| -4447| 8370| 0| 00:03:47 1.0-02+ > > LATENCY with load: > == Sampling period: 100 us > RTH|-----lat min|-----lat avg|-----lat max|-overrun| > RTS| -6930| -4260| 8700| 0| 00:08:06 1.0-00 > RTS| -5670| -4620| 12930| 0| 00:12:39 1.0-01 > RTS| -5700| -3750| 11280| 0| 00:06:05 1.0-02 > RTS| -5640| -2250| 11310| 0| 00:10:31 1.0-02+ > > Load is still generated manually, so the pattern may vary: lat avg > is not meaningful. The amplitude would be a much more interesting value. > Anyway, are the generated load comparable? > > The klatency is in better shape, however the latency test did not improve. > The 1.0-00 patch should be rerun as a double check. > I'm afraid we're already entering performance fine tuning, while we have Actually no, such a high variation in latency is the sign of a serious regression, not just a fine tuning issue. Let's stop there, I'll remove the fork patch for -03 since it had no positive impact anyway. Thanks. > IMO other higher priority tasks for now. At least, I do :-( > -- Philippe.