From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org
Subject: Re: Interbench real time benchmark results
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:32:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050719223216.GA4194@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507200816.11386.kernel@kolivas.org>
* Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> Not entirely what some would expect. Very little difference under low
> loads, but the maximum latencies exhibited are about the same at
> 300us. However they hare under different workloads. With these
> worklods, on this hardware, running these real time simulations there
> is not a convincing argument for CONFIG-PREEMPT. Note that running
> interbench with the non-real time benchmarks also does not show a
> convincing reason for preempt.
while i do like the PREEMPT_RT results, i think we need to do two more
things to have total confidence in the numbers:
- i think we'll need to increase the number of sample points, by both
increasing the frequency of samples, and by lengthening the
test-time - even if just for a single testrun. Some of the worst-case
latencies i care about in PREEMPT_RT trigger only once every couple
of million interrupts (!). For human interactivity we probably dont
care that much though.
- many of the worst-case latencies relate to some sort of extreme
situation within a particular algorithm. E.g. lots of tasks being
around. Do this for example:
hackbench 50
and Ctrl-Z it after a couple of seconds. You'll see a 1msec (or
larger) blip.
or, fill up swapspace, so that the swap allocation map gets filled
up.
- networking is another frequent source of latencies - it might make
sense to add a workload doing lots of socket IO. (localhost might be
enough, but not for everything)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-19 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-19 22:16 Interbench real time benchmark results Con Kolivas
2005-07-19 22:32 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-07-20 0:23 ` Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 1:04 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-20 1:22 ` Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 1:31 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-07-20 1:45 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-21 4:48 ` 2.6.12 PREEMPT_RT && PPC john cooper
2005-07-21 11:45 ` Gene Heskett
2005-07-21 12:22 ` Gene Heskett
2005-07-21 13:13 ` john cooper
2005-07-26 12:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-26 14:44 ` K.R. Foley
2005-07-26 14:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-26 15:06 ` K.R. Foley
2005-07-20 0:23 ` Interbench real time benchmark results Daniel Walker
2005-07-20 4:59 ` Lee Revell
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=20050719223216.GA4194@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ck@vds.kolivas.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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