Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:35:16 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] preempt-timing-on-2.6.8-rc2-O2 |
| |
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:08:15PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > i've uploaded a new version of the patch, this solves a problem when > > using a smaller than 1000 usecs threshold: idle time got accounted as > > delay too which flooded the log. The new patch makes idle=poll the > > default and that function calls touch_preempt_timing(). > > Sorry about not updating things, but there's also another bug, which > is that touch_preempt_timing() forgets to check if the threshold has > been violated in the interim.
i've re-uploaded the -O2 patch with this fixed:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/preempt-timing-on-2.6.8-rc2-O2
but i'm still seeing some latencies:
(kjournald/189): 997us non-preemptible critical section violated 100 us preempt threshold starting at journal_commit_transaction+0x642/0x2b10 and ending at journal_commit_transaction+0x24ce/0x2b10
[<c0105d7e>] dump_stack+0x1e/0x30 [<c011ad0f>] dec_preempt_count+0x3f/0x50 [<c01dfd3e>] journal_commit_transaction+0x24ce/0x2b10 [<c01e3bf4>] kjournald+0x1a4/0x710 [<c0102765>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0x10
these should not happen with vp=3 and max_sectors=16. Could you double-check the patch above, does it have any other timing thinko?
Ingo - 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/
| |