From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262384AbVGHIxm (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 04:53:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262273AbVGHIxm (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 04:53:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:4064 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262364AbVGHIw5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 04:52:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:52:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rui Nuno Capela Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.51-11 glitches [no more] Message-ID: <20050708085253.GA1177@elte.hu> References: <1119370868.26957.9.camel@cmn37.stanford.edu> <20050621164622.GA30225@elte.hu> <1119375988.28018.44.camel@cmn37.stanford.edu> <1120256404.22902.46.camel@cmn37.stanford.edu> <20050703133738.GB14260@elte.hu> <1120428465.21398.2.camel@cmn37.stanford.edu> <24833.195.245.190.94.1120761991.squirrel@www.rncbc.org> <20050707194914.GA1161@elte.hu> <49943.192.168.1.5.1120778373.squirrel@www.rncbc.org> <57445.195.245.190.94.1120812419.squirrel@www.rncbc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57445.195.245.190.94.1120812419.squirrel@www.rncbc.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > OK. > > Just for the heads up, here goes todays summary results regarding my > jack_test4.2 test suite against 2.6.12 kernels configured with > PREEMPT_RT, but... now with 99.9% certainty :) thanks for the testing! > ------------------------------ ------------- ------------- > RT-V0.7.51-13 RT-V0.7.49-01 > ------------------------------ ------------- ------------- > Delay Maximum . . . . . . . . : 333 295 usecs > Cycle Maximum . . . . . . . . : 970 943 usecs > Average DSP Load. . . . . . . : 45.7 44.4 % > Average CPU System Load . . . : 15.6 16.3 % > Average CPU User Load . . . . : 32.0 30.1 % i'm wondering - is this slight increase in CPU utilization (and latencies) due to natural fluctuations, or is it a genuine overhead increase? Ingo