From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Kacur Subject: Re: merge of real-time 2.6.33.9-rt31 with stable 2.6.33.13 Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 10:54:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Carsten Emde To: Thomas Gleixner Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner w= rote: > On Sat, 14 May 2011, John Kacur wrote: >> I did some light testing merging 2.6.33.13 into real-time 2.6.33.9-r= t31. >> In addition I cherry-picked 3c955b407a084810f57260d61548cc92c14bc627 >> in order to compile on newer distros. > > Thanks. > >> Here is the result of cyclic test on one machine >> sudo ./cyclictest -t32 -p 80 -n -i 10000 -l 10000 >> policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1/541 3759 >> >> T: 0 ( 3728) P:80 I:10000 C: =A010000 Min: =A0 =A0 =A07 Act: =A0104 = Avg: =A0114 Max: =A0 =A0 470 > > The numbers are weird. How does that compare to older kernels on that > machine with the same test? Note this was on a machine with a straight Fedora install, and no -rt packages or tuning. That being the case, the numbers are no better or worse than recent -rt kernels. I can get you numbers with the last kernel if you wish, on Monday. Perhaps Carsten would be interested in running his tests? John