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
next prev parent 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