[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1
    On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 15:49 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
    > James R Bruce wrote:
    > > It seems that running lmbench improves the maximum response time
    > > considerably compared to an idle system, unless you touch the
    > > hard drive. That sort of thing makes very little sense though,
    > > and thus is likely an artifact of the testing. Maybe the test
    > > needs to be run for longer, or maybe each test should be
    > > duplicated a few times? I realize the max is always going to be
    > > pretty noisy, but we can't really compare approaches much if it
    > > jumps around by a factor of 2.5. Then again, maybe lmbench *does*
    > > improve latency and that would definitely be a bug somewhere that
    > > you've uncovered :)
    > Actually I personally read these numbers as being very good. What
    > I see here is that there were exactly two maximums on 5 different
    > configs and that standard deviation was always close to 0. What that
    > means is that Adeos' performance degradation is stepwise and can be
    > studied (i.e. in order to obtain things like: 60% of the time your
    > maximum will be 53us and 40% of the time, it'll be 22us.) I don't
    > think there's any correlation between the setup and the maximum
    > observed. Instead, it's more like ints were generated by the logger
    > every 1ms and 1ms is an eternity, so on every odd moon, a combination
    > of factors resulted in the 53 us actually occuring, but on other
    > setups, with luck, the maximum was less.
    > The real remedy to this would be to certainly run longer tests, but
    > more importantly, it would be to generate a lot more interrupts from
    > the logger at random times instead of just every 1ms. This would
    > avoid any sort of artificial sync that may occur between the logger
    > and the target by virtue of having the logger generate interrupts at
    > exactly every 1ms. This type of test, though, would be more
    > complicated and it would require very careful design on the logger
    > side to avoid introducing any sort of articial latency into the
    > measurement process.
    > > The nicest results would be CDFs or histograms of the response
    > > times, plotted againts each other for east comparison. Obviously
    > > that makes more work for you, however. If we can get full traces
    > > from the logger as text, then its easy for us to make such graphs,
    > > or add some scripts to your testbed once its released to generate
    > > them automatically with gnuplot/etc.
    > We will be providing full traces, amongst other things. And
    > getting additions/modifications allowing the automatic generation
    > of graphs, and other stuff would be great.
    > Karim

    All that sounds like lots of job and fun tomorrow morning. I better go
    to sleep !!!

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-06-13 04:38    [W:0.023 / U:30.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site