lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt
    Date
    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:25, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
    > > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 09:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > > I have to say, this whole thread has been pretty damn worthless in
    > > > general in my not-so-humble opinion.
    > >
    > > This thread has really gone OT, but to revisit the original issue for a
    > > bit, are you still unwilling to consider leaving the default HZ at 1000
    > > for 2.6.13?
    >
    > Yes. I see absolutely no point to it until I actually hear people who have
    > actually tried some real load that doesn't work. Dammit, I want a real
    > user who says that he can noticeable see his DVD stuttering, not some
    > theory.

    Disclaimer - This is not proof of a real world dvd stuttering, simply a
    benchmarked result. My code may be crap, but then the real apps out there may
    also be.

    Results from interbench v0.21
    (http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.21.tar.bz2)

    2.6.13-rc1 on a pentium4 3.06

    HZ=1000:
    --- Benchmarking Audio in the presence of loads ---
    Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.012 +/- 0.00196 0.021 100 100
    Video 1.28 +/- 0.509 2.01 100 100
    X 0.289 +/- 0.578 2 100 100
    Burn 0.014 +/- 0.002 0.023 100 100
    Write 0.025 +/- 0.0349 0.49 100 100
    Read 0.02 +/- 0.00383 0.052 100 100
    Compile 0.023 +/- 0.00752 0.054 100 100
    Memload 0.222 +/- 0.892 9.04 100 100

    --- Benchmarking Video in the presence of loads ---
    Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.012 +/- 0.00169 0.023 100 100
    X 2.55 +/- 2.37 18.7 100 75.8
    Burn 1.08 +/- 1.06 16.7 100 88.2
    Write 0.224 +/- 0.215 16.7 100 97.8
    Read 0.019 +/- 0.00354 0.059 100 100
    Compile 4.55 +/- 4.53 17.6 100 57.5
    Memload 1.3 +/- 1.34 51.5 100 88


    HZ=250:
    --- Benchmarking Audio in the presence of loads ---
    Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 0.011 +/- 0.00152 0.022 100 100
    Video 0.157 +/- 0.398 3.62 100 100
    X 1.3 +/- 1.82 4.01 100 100
    Burn 0.014 +/- 0.00142 0.026 100 100
    Write 0.022 +/- 0.0125 0.092 100 100
    Read 0.021 +/- 0.00366 0.048 100 100
    Compile 0.03 +/- 0.0469 0.559 100 100
    Memload 0.144 +/- 0.681 8.05 100 100

    --- Benchmarking Video in the presence of loads ---
    Latency +/- SD (ms) Max Latency % Desired CPU % Deadlines Met
    None 5 +/- 4.99 16.7 100 54
    X 9.98 +/- 8.94 20.7 100 31.2
    Burn 16.6 +/- 16.6 16.7 100 0.167
    Write 4.11 +/- 4.08 16.7 100 60.8
    Read 2.55 +/- 2.53 16.7 100 73.8
    Compile 15.6 +/- 15.6 17.7 100 3.5
    Memload 2.91 +/- 2.92 45.4 100 72.5


    Audio did show slightly larger max latencies but nothing that would be of
    significance.

    On video, maximum latencies are only slightly larger at HZ 250, all the
    desired cpu was achieved, but the average latency and number of missed
    deadlines was significantly higher.

    Cheers,
    Con
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-15 06:14    [W:4.113 / U:0.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site