From: Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>
To: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@opersys.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, bhuey@lnxw.com,
andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu,
pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, ak@muc.de,
dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org,
rpm@xenomai.org
Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:39:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42AAF7A7.4010406@opersys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1118481315.9519.39.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net>
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> I am too looking forward to seeing results against the >= 07.48 RT
> kernels incorporating Daniel's recent IRQ disable relief.
Indeed, this is on our list.
> I think the comparison should absolutely compare identical community
> kernels. The comparison between two different release candidates is
> questionable. rc2 to rc4 doesn't seem like much, after all, how much
> code could go into a release candidate. (diff | wc -l)
>
> Also, I question testing -rc code in the first place, except for
> regression purposes.
On this issue, it has to be said that I don't think any set of test
results will suffice on its own as a definitive benchmark. There will
be a need for continued testing and publication of said results, which
we hope others will take part in when we publish the framework we've put
together.
> Finally, there are other big-picture issues. How hard is it to maintain
> the code in general? At the risk of ruffling feathers, forward-porting
> RT code (or backporting) it a few revisions of rc's isn't too bad.
>
> At Ingo's pace, we have all done some of that.
>
> How does that effort compare for porting ADEOS code? If several weeks of
> work are invested in a comparison of rc2 to rc4, how much additional
> work is needed to bring Adeos up to the base for the current RT kernel?
Philippe can correct me if I'm wrong, but adeos maintenance is not that
difficult. However, it has to be said that up until now, Philippe has been
the main driving force behind adeos. So while he's been fairly good at
publishing patches for as recent a kernel as possible, the manpower behind
PREEMPT_RT is obviously larger. That, though, only requires interested
parties to participate for it to change. Again, the adeos patch isn't
that big.
> In addition, I think the discrepancy between the vanilla kernel and the
> RT kernel could be much greater, if the workload specifically, or even
> coincidentally exercised bottlenecks.
If you've got any specific test run suggestions, we'll gladly take them.
Karim
--
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 1-866-677-4546
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-11 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-11 4:36 PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1 Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 6:14 ` Nick Piggin
2005-06-11 9:15 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-06-11 14:15 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-12 15:48 ` Philippe Gerum
2005-06-11 14:39 ` Karim Yaghmour [this message]
2005-06-11 22:14 ` Philippe Gerum
2005-06-11 13:57 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 14:28 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-06-11 7:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 7:44 ` Nick Piggin
2005-06-11 9:27 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-06-12 15:31 ` Philippe Gerum
2005-06-11 14:28 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 10:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 14:23 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 14:31 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-11 14:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 14:52 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-11 17:40 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-11 18:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 18:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 22:27 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-12 10:47 ` James R Bruce
2005-06-12 14:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-13 2:39 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-11 22:31 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-12 6:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-12 15:26 ` Daniel Walker
2005-06-12 19:29 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-12 20:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-13 0:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-06-13 1:20 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-13 5:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-12 22:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-06-12 23:03 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-06-13 0:53 ` randy_dunlap
2005-06-13 1:12 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-13 6:51 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-06-13 15:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-13 15:12 ` Kristian Benoit
2005-06-11 19:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-06-12 4:21 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-11 20:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-11 22:33 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-12 20:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-06-12 11:11 ` James R Bruce
2005-06-12 19:49 ` Karim Yaghmour
2005-06-13 2:32 ` Kristian Benoit
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=42AAF7A7.4010406@opersys.com \
--to=karim@opersys.com \
--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=kbenoit@opersys.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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