From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Niehaus <niehaus@ittc.ku.edu>,
Benedikt Spranger <bene@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: High resolution timers and BH processing on -RT
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:43:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050128044301.GD29751@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1106871192.21196.152.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de>
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Some numbers to make this more transparent.
>
> Machine: PIII Celeron 333MHz
> RT - T0: 1ms cyclic
> RT - T1: 2ms cyclic
> ....
>
> Load average is ~4.0 for all tests. The numbers are maximum deviation
> from the timeline in microseconds. Test time was ~60 minutes for each
> szenario.
>
> Running all timers in high resolution mode (ksoftirqd) results in:
> [T0 Prio: 60] 2123
> [T1 Prio: 59] 2556
> [T2 Prio: 58] 2882
> [T3 Prio: 57] 2993
> [T4 Prio: 56] 2888
>
> Running all timers in high resolution mode (seperated timer softirqd
> PRIO=70) results in:
> [T0 Prio: 60] 423
> [T1 Prio: 59] 372
> [T2 Prio: 58] 756
> [T3 Prio: 57] 802
> [T4 Prio: 56] 1208
is this due to algorithmic/PIT-programming overhead, or due to the noise
introduced by other, non-hard-RT timers? I'd guess the later from the
looks of it, but did your test introduce such noise (via networking and
application workloads?).
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-28 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-28 0:13 High resolution timers and BH processing on -RT Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28 4:43 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-01-28 8:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28 8:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28 8:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-28 8:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28 18:34 ` George Anzinger
2005-01-28 18:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-28 18:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-31 9:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20050128044301.GD29751@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=bene@linutronix.de \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=niehaus@ittc.ku.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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