From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <kjh-lkml@hilman.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: voluntary-preemption: understanding latency trace
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:09:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094800144.15407.4.camel@krustophenia.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040910063749.GA25298@elte.hu>
On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 02:37, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've got a SCHED_FIFO kernel thread at the highest priority
> > > (MAX_USER_RT_PRIO-1) and it's sleeping on a wait queue. The wake is
> > > called from an ISR. Since this thread is the highest priority in the
> > > system, I expect it to run before the ISR threads and softIRQ threads
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > In the ISR I sample sched_clock() just before the call to wake_up()
> > > and in the thread I sample sched_clock() again just after the call to
> > > sleep. I'm seeing an almost 4ms latency between the call to wake_up
> > > and the actual wakeup. However, in /proc/latency_trace, the worst
> > > latency I see during the running of this test is <500us.
>
> > Ingo, any ideas here? Looks like maybe the use of sched_clock is the
> > problem.
>
> sched_clock() is not 100% accurate (it takes a few shortcuts to avoid a
> division) but it should be better than 90% so 4 msec measured means
> there's likely some big delay.
>
> if the priority setup is indeed as described above then the RT task
> should have run much faster. First i'd suggest to check whether it's not
> console printing (printing of a stacktrace or a latency trace) that
> slows things down.
>
Ah, this is probably it, this is pretty close to the latency I get when
/proc/latency_trace is updated, and this is also the one latency that
doesn't show in the traces by design.
rlrevell@mindpipe:~$ ./amlat-rlr/amlat
599.895 MHz
secondsPerTick=0.000000
ticksPerSecond=599894954.372806
599.895 MHz
Using rtc interval of 1024
u=0
latency = 53 microseconds
latency = 60 microseconds
latency = 60 microseconds
latency = 62 microseconds
latency = 66 microseconds
latency = 76 microseconds
latency = 78 microseconds
latency = 2548 microseconds
The last line is the latency trace being updated. If I turn off tracing
or set preempt_max_latency to a high value then amlat doesn't show
these.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-10 7:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-09 10:41 voluntary-preemption: understanding latency trace Kevin Hilman
2004-09-09 21:02 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-10 6:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-10 7:09 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2004-09-10 7:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-10 14:56 ` Kevin Hilman
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=1094800144.15407.4.camel@krustophenia.net \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=kjh-lkml@hilman.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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