From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Scholz Subject: Re: Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:17:24 +0100 Message-ID: <45A76034.307@imc-berlin.de> References: <45A6698B.4080504@imc-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.imc-berlin.de ([217.110.46.186]:1568 "EHLO mail.imc-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161061AbXALKR2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:17:28 -0500 Received: from mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de [10.0.0.19]) by mail.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34B72F02B for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:11:43 +0100 (CET) To: Steven Scholz In-Reply-To: <45A6698B.4080504@imc-berlin.de> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org Hi, I wrote: > So I ran > > cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -n -l 10000 and > cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -l 10000 > > on my emdedded x86 Celeron, 600MHz using 2.6.17-rt3 and 2.6.19-rt15. Funny > enough the older version seems to be better: > > > 2.6.17-rt3 24 47 33 > 2.6.19-rt15 41 100 56 > ... > Is there a known explanation? > > Think I try to test some 2.6.20-rt tomorrow ... 2.6.20-rc4-rt3 is similar to 2.6.19 thus still slower then 2.6.17 ... -- Steven