public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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



  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