From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262389AbVFVV1v (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262546AbVFVV1N (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:13 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:7099 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262363AbVFVVX1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:23:54 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Kristian Benoit , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhuey@lnxw.com, andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, 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, rpm@xenomai.org Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 Message-ID: <20050622212354.GI1296@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <1119287612.6863.1.camel@localhost> <20050621015542.GB1298@us.ibm.com> <42B77B8C.6050109@opersys.com> <20050622011931.GF1324@us.ibm.com> <42B9845B.8030404@opersys.com> <20050622162718.GD1296@us.ibm.com> <42B9A6D6.4060109@opersys.com> <20050622184748.GF1296@us.ibm.com> <42B9B917.9010606@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42B9B917.9010606@opersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:16:39PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > (And, yes, there are other CDFs lacking a 30us bulge that would be > > consistent with a 55us "blue-moon" bulge -- so I guess I am asking > > if you have the CDF or the raw latency measurements -- though the > > data set might be a bit large... And I would have to think about > > how one goes about deriving individual-latency CDF(s) given a single > > dual-latency CDF, assuming that this is even possible...) > > This is a bandwidth issue. The compressed archive containing the > interrupt latencies of all our test runs is 100MB. I could provide > a URL _privately_ to a handful of individuals, but beyond that > someone's going to have to host it. > > Let me know if you want this. The approach of measuring the target's and the logger's latencies separately is a -much- better approach than using strange mathematical techniques with strange mathematical assumptions. So please don't waste any further time on my misguided request for the full data set! > Of course, now that LRTBF is out there, others can generate their > own data sets. True enough! Thanx, Paul