Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:06:07 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 |
| |
* Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: > > please retest using recent (i.e. today's) -RT kernels. There were a > > whole bunch of fixes that could affect these numbers. > > At this point, we're bound to rerun some of the tests. But there's > only so many times that one can claim that such and such test isn't > good enough because it doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles. > Surely there's more to this overhead than just rudimentary bugfixes.
well, it was your choice to benchmark ADEOS against PREEMPT_RT, right? You posted numbers that showed your project in a favorable light while the PREEMPT_RT numbers were more than 100% off. Your second batch of numbers showed a tie, but we still dont know the true correct PREEMPT_RT irq latency values on your hardware, because your testing still had bugs. So a minimum requirement would be to post accurate numbers - you have started this after all.
this thread showcases one of the many reasons why 'vendor sponsored benchmarking' is such a bad idea. I wont post benchmark numbers comparing PREEMPT_RT to 'other' realtime projects. I'm obviously biased, everyone else sees me as biased, so what's the point? Should i pretend i'm not biased towards the stuff i wrote? That would be hypocritical beyond recognition. I dont benchmark PREEMPT_RT against other projects because i know it perfectly well that it is the best thing since sliced bread ;)
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/
| |