![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 03:39, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote: > > > If we have any suspects for the code paths involved, couldn't this be > > verified by adding a udelay(10) to the path, and verifying that the > > hump moves by 10? This technique could also be used to distinguish > > different code paths with similar execution times. It looks like they > > are finite and few in number. > > i believe wli's latency-timing patch gives a pretty good indication of > the code path(s) involved - i'm using something quite similar to that. > The printout triggers immediately at the end of a high latency, so the > stack contains a number of clues about what went on before. > Can you post this patch, or add it to the voluntary preempt series? The one posted several weeks ago worked for me but had to be applied manually and has probably been improved since. Just to clarify the last numbers I posted were for O2. Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||