From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262388AbVFVV1v (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262541AbVFVV1D (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:03 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:34320 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262374AbVFVVVD (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:21:03 -0400 Message-ID: <42B9D8D3.6060602@opersys.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:32:03 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040805 Netscape/7.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr, fr-be, fr-ca, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: "Paul E. McKenney" , Kristian Benoit , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhuey@lnxw.com, andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, 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, Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 References: <42B77B8C.6050109@opersys.com> <20050622011931.GF1324@us.ibm.com> <42B9845B.8030404@opersys.com> <20050622162718.GD1296@us.ibm.com> <1119460803.5825.13.camel@localhost> <20050622185019.GG1296@us.ibm.com> <20050622190422.GA6572@elte.hu> <42B9C777.8040202@opersys.com> <20050622202242.GA17301@elte.hu> <42B9D208.4080305@opersys.com> <20050622211037.GB24029@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20050622211037.GB24029@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > see above. (It's no secret, i described components of this workload in > one of my first mails to the adeos thread. I remembered your description, but it's always nice to see exactly what's being done. Thanks very much for sending this, we'll integrate it into the LRTBF. > Btw., what happened to adeos > irq latency testing?) It got obsoleted by the ipipe testing. It's basically the same thing. What we were testing in the first released testbench was the usage of the interrupt pipeline in adeos. Now that Philippe has forked it out to make it more straightforward for people to look at (instead of thinking they are looking at a true full nanokernel), it was just the appropriate thing to do to use the I-pipe patch instead. The mechansim being measured is exactly the same thing. 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