linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Iain Sandoe" <iain@sandoe.co.uk>
To: Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@norran.net>
Cc: linux-audio-dev@ginette.musique.umontreal.ca,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [ANN] First latency test results for linuxPPC  [2.2.17pre10-ben2]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:48:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200007142149.WAA03525@hyperion.valhalla.net> (raw)


On  Fri, Jul 14, 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
> Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> I've posted the results of Benno's latency tests applied to 2.2.17pre10-ben2
>> on LinuxPPC.
[...]
>> No big surprises - although the PPC /proc fs seems to be a little slower
>> than the x86 one...
>>
>> Working on 2.4.0-test4 & thence to Andrew's patches on LinuxPPC...
[...]
> The green ticks on X11 test are interesting - something with a higher
> prio than
> the SCHED_FIFO max takes the processor away from it and runs for more
> than 1 ms.
>
> The only thing that can do that is interrupt routines / back handlers...
> (try to find this one)

Yeah, I've got a concern there... I have Jun Sun's IRQ latency test code
ported.  I'll re-do the patch and try it again.

I have a feeling that the first time through (with the IRQ code) I may have
made a mistake in the value of the freq of the VEA Timebase counter.

If this is true then the IRQ times for the PPC are truly awful on
occasions..

I.E. I had the freq as 300 MHz - but I think it is actually approx 18MHz.

If that is the case then there is/are something/some things that are holding
IRQs off for up to.... > 9 or so ***ms***  Yikes.

I'll check this out tomorrow... but locating them might be hard because most
of the longer times are recorded in 'softira.c' & 'irq.c' - which doesn't
narrow things down much.

Expect a re-do of the IRQ patch tomorrow - and a request to try it out :-)

> Disk read looks nice - others looks ...

ummm /proc was the one that looked worst to me...

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

             reply	other threads:[~2000-07-14 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2000-07-14 21:48 Iain Sandoe [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-07-13 23:54 [ANN] First latency test results for linuxPPC [2.2.17pre10-ben2] Iain Sandoe
2000-07-14 18:47 ` [linux-audio-dev] " Roger Larsson

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=200007142149.WAA03525@hyperion.valhalla.net \
    --to=iain@sandoe.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-audio-dev@ginette.musique.umontreal.ca \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org \
    --cc=roger.larsson@norran.net \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).