public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>
Cc: Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@opersys.com>,
	paulmck@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhuey@lnxw.com,
	andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, pmarques@grupopie.com,
	bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de,
	sdietrich@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org,
	akpm@osdl.org, Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:14:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050622181449.GC28597@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42B9AA00.7050301@opersys.com>


* Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote:

> 
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>you could try the LPPTEST kernel driver and testlpp utility i 
> >>integrated into the -RT patchset. It avoids target-side latencies 
> >>almost completely. Especially since you had problems with parallel 
> >>interrupts you should give it a go and compare the results.
> > 
> > 
> > correction: logger-side latencies are avoided.
> 
> Sorry, I don't see this. I've just looked at lpptest.c and it does
> practically the same thing  LRTBF is doing, have a look for yourself
> at the code in LRTBF.

you should take another look. The crutial difference is that AFAICS 
lrtbf is using interrupts on _both_ the logger and the target side.  
lpptest only uses interrupts on the target side (that is what we are 
measuring), but uses polling _with all interrupts disabled_ on the 
logger side. This makes things much more reliable, as it's not some 
complex mix of two worst-case latencies, but a small constant overhead 
on the logger side and the worst-case latency on the target side. This 
also means i can run whatever lpptest version on the logger side, i dont 
have to worry about its latencies because there are none that are 
variable.

> In fact lpptest.c is probably running at a higher cost on the logger 
> since it executes a copy_to_user() for every single data point 
> collected. [...]

logger-side overhead does not matter at all, and the 8 bytes copy is not 
measured in the overhead. (it is also insignificant.)

> [...] In the case of the LRTBF, we just buffer the results in a 
> preallocated buffer and then read them all at once after the testrun.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing done in lpptest that we 
> aren't already doing on either side, logger-side latencies included.
>
> As for the interrupt problems, they were pilot error. They disappeared 
> once the APIC was enabled. That's therefore a non-issue.

well, LPPTEST works just fine with the i8259A PIC too. (which is much 
more common in embedded setups than IO-APICs)

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2005-06-22 18:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-06-20 17:13 PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 Kristian Benoit
2005-06-20 18:31 ` Bill Huey
2005-06-22 16:00   ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 19:29     ` Bill Huey
2005-06-22 20:05       ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 20:39         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 22:04           ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 23:03             ` Lee Revell
2005-06-22 23:52               ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 23:38             ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 23:57               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-06-23  0:05               ` Daniel Walker
2005-06-23  0:48                 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  0:06               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-23  0:47                 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  0:55                   ` Bill Huey
2005-06-23  1:09                     ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  1:15                       ` Bill Huey
2005-06-23  1:47                         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  0:59                   ` David Lang
2005-06-23  1:22                     ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  1:42                       ` David Lang
2005-06-23  2:09                         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  2:15                           ` David Lang
2005-06-23  1:34                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-23  2:02                     ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23  3:57                       ` Lee Revell
2005-06-23  4:13                         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 20:10       ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 20:15         ` Bill Huey
2005-06-21  1:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-21  2:29   ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22  1:19     ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 15:31       ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 15:27         ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-22 16:27         ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 17:20           ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-22 17:34             ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 17:40               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 18:12                 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 18:14                   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-06-22 19:04                     ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 18:50             ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 19:04               ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 20:17                 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 20:22                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 21:03                     ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 21:10                       ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 21:32                         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 22:41                       ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-22 23:02                         ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 21:20                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 19:08               ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-23 14:48             ` Paulo Marques
2005-06-22 17:58           ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 18:47             ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 19:16               ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-22 21:23                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-22 17:17         ` Lee Revell
2005-06-22 17:32           ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-29  7:43           ` PREEMPT_RT & threading IRQ 0 Ingo Molnar

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=20050622181449.GC28597@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=ak@muc.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=bhuey@lnxw.com \
    --cc=bruce@andrew.cmu.edu \
    --cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=karim@opersys.com \
    --cc=kbenoit@opersys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=pmarques@grupopie.com \
    --cc=rpm@xenomai.org \
    --cc=sdietrich@mvista.com \
    --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