From: "K.R. Foley" <kr@cybsft.com>
To: Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@rncbc.org>, Bill Huey <bhuey@lnxw.com>,
Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>,
Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas@gmx.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Michal Schmidt <xschmi00@stud.feec.vutbr.cz>,
Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano <nando@ccrma.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U9.3
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:49:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41795653.6020802@cybsft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF7FC21EAE.3A2E362A-ON86256F35.0066D568-86256F35.0066D58B@raytheon.com>
Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com wrote:
>>i have released the -U9.3 Real-Time Preemption patch, ...
>>
>
> It is getting hard to keep up with the updates....
>
> This version built OK and since I noticed it includes fixes for the
> parallel port, I added that back to my configuration and built / booted
> without any problems. I still see the BUG from:
>
> Oct 22 12:27:50 dws77 kernel: 8139too Fast Ethernet driver 0.9.27
> Oct 22 12:27:50 dws77 kernel: eth0: RealTek RTL8139 at 0xdc00,
> 00:50:bf:39:11:fc, IRQ 11
> Oct 22 12:27:50 dws77 kernel: BUG: atomic counter underflow at:
> Oct 22 12:27:50 dws77 kernel: [<c02b8f88>] qdisc_destroy+0x98/0xa0 (12)
>
> I saw the messages about fixes for the other network drivers, but
> don't forget this one.
I still get this also. This is not fixed by the network driver fix, but
I don't think it was expected to be.
>
> Real time stress tests ran more smoothly this time with fewer
> odd symptoms but a few new symptoms showed up too. I'll send the
> boot log and traces separately. The following summarizes the tests
> and results.
>
> [1] X11 stress - very clean, max CPU delay was only 20 usec.
>
> [2] proc stress - very clean, max CPU delay was only 30 usec.
>
> [3] network output stress - only trace much worse than U9.2. An odd
> pattern in the graph showing a delay of roughly 400 usec every 5
> seconds with a much smaller delay following. There were also a couple
> bursts of delays at 90-100 seconds, and 250-260 seconds. Did not
> see this pattern on any other test.
>
> [4] network input stress - very clean, max CPU delay was only 80 usec.
>
> [5] disk write stress - very clean, max CPU delay only 70 usec.
>
> [6] disk copy stress - very clean, max CPU delay only 90 usec.
>
> [7] disk read stress - first 25 seconds, had a pattern of roughly 100 usec
> CPU delays with a few peaks at 500 usec. After that, was very clean, almost
> 99.7% of the CPU delays were under 100 usec.
>
> During these tests (total 25-30 minutes) had seven latency traces
> over >200 usec. Summary follows:
>
> 00 - find_symbol, a single trace line over 400 usec as follows
> preemption latency trace v1.0.7 on 2.6.9-rc4-mm1-RT-U9.3
> -------------------------------------------------------
> latency: 495 us, entries: 9 (9) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1 #CPUS:2]
> -----------------
> | task: modprobe/3643, uid:0 nice:-10 policy:0 rt_prio:0
> -----------------
> => started at: _spin_lock_irqsave+0x1f/0x80 <c0314f4f>
> => ended at: _spin_unlock_irq+0x1b/0x40 <c031538b>
> =======>
> 00000001 0.000ms (+0.000ms): _spin_lock_irqsave (resolve_symbol)
> 00000001 0.000ms (+0.447ms): __find_symbol (resolve_symbol)
> 00010001 0.448ms (+0.000ms): do_nmi (__find_symbol)
> 00010001 0.448ms (+0.000ms): do_nmi (add_preempt_count)
> 00010001 0.449ms (+0.042ms): do_nmi (<00200093>)
> 00000001 0.491ms (+0.000ms): use_module (resolve_symbol)
> 00000001 0.492ms (+0.001ms): already_uses (use_module)
> 00000001 0.493ms (+0.000ms): kmem_cache_alloc (use_module)
> 00000001 0.494ms (+0.000ms): _spin_unlock_irq (resolve_symbol)
>
> 01, 02, 03, 05, 06 - flush_tlb
> latency: 1815 us, entries: 108 (108) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1 #CPUS:2]
> latency: 8959 us, entries: 180 (180) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1 #CPUS:2]
> latency: 175300 us, entries: 4000 (8116) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1
> #CPUS:2]
> latency: 80679 us, entries: 1545 (1545) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1
> #CPUS:2]
> latency: 76801 us, entries: 3561 (3561) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1
> #CPUS:2]
>
> This is that symptom I reported before where something gets "stuck"
> and one or more clock ticks later, it finally gets freed up. Note that
> the real time application did not see any of these delays. It may
> be interesting to do another test w/ two real time tasks to see if
> these are real or a sampling artifact.
>
> 04 - avc_insert, a single > 200 usec trace entry.
>
> preemption latency trace v1.0.7 on 2.6.9-rc4-mm1-RT-U9.3
> -------------------------------------------------------
> latency: 216 us, entries: 4 (4) | [VP:1 KP:1 SP:1 HP:1 #CPUS:2]
> -----------------
> | task: fam/2933, uid:0 nice:0 policy:0 rt_prio:0
> -----------------
> => started at: _spin_lock_irqsave+0x1f/0x80 <c0314f4f>
> => ended at: _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x20/0x50 <c0315340>
> =======>
> 00000001 0.000ms (+0.000ms): _spin_lock_irqsave (avc_has_perm_noaudit)
> 00000001 0.000ms (+0.214ms): avc_insert (avc_has_perm_noaudit)
> 00000001 0.214ms (+0.000ms): memcpy (avc_has_perm_noaudit)
> 00000001 0.215ms (+0.000ms): _spin_unlock_irqrestore (avc_has_perm_noaudit)
>
> --Mark
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-22 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-22 18:43 [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U9.3 Mark_H_Johnson
2004-10-22 18:49 ` K.R. Foley [this message]
2004-10-22 18:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-22 19:40 Mark_H_Johnson
2004-10-22 19:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-10-14 0:24 [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -VP-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U0 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-14 14:31 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -VP-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U1 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-14 23:42 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -VP-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U2 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-15 10:26 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -VP-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U3 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-16 15:33 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -VP-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U4 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-18 14:50 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U5 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-19 12:46 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U6 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-19 18:00 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U7 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-20 9:45 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-21 13:27 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U9 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-22 13:35 ` [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U9.3 Ingo Molnar
2004-10-22 18:41 ` Alexander Batyrshin
2004-10-22 20:08 ` 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=41795653.6020802@cybsft.com \
--to=kr@cybsft.com \
--cc=Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com \
--cc=bhuey@lnxw.com \
--cc=doogie@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mista.tapas@gmx.net \
--cc=nando@ccrma.Stanford.EDU \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=rncbc@rncbc.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=xschmi00@stud.feec.vutbr.cz \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).