Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: looking for a preempt-patch for 2.4.10-ac12 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 17 Oct 2001 15:53:54 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2001-10-17 at 15:47, elko wrote: > the patch is there, I applied it together with the stats-patch > and my system is running like a charm right now, never have seen > this kind of response in X.
Glad everything is working smooth...
> the only thing is, the perl-script at: > http://www.tech9.net/rml/linux/top-latencies > > shows something this: > > ----[ SNIP ]---- > n min avg max cause mask start line/file address end line/file > 14 9512 9590 9711 spin_lock 5 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c0226736119/softirq.c > 89 9454 9559 9682 spin_lock 9 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c0226736119/softirq.c > 2 9540 9551 9563 spin_lock 3 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c0226736119/softirq.c > 3895 7708 9532 14296 spin_lock 1 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c0226736119/softirq.c > 1 9513 9513 9513 spin_lock 1 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c02267362152/tcp_ipv4.c > 363 3594 6166 9512 spin_lock 0 2111/tcp_ipv4.c c02267362152/tcp_ipv4.c > ----[ SNIP ]---- > > that 3895 number for '2111/tcp_ipv4.c c0226736119/softirq.c' > keeps adding up, how should I translate that? big network > latency, is that what it means? if so, any idea on how > can I fix that??
the n column is the number of times the lock has been held. the lock is probably held numerous times in a given second, so you see large n values.
note that all those rows you showed could be in one row, but the top-latencies tool keeps them separate since they have a different mask.
anyhow, the max recorded latency is 9.5ms which is not too bad. I'm not looking at the code, but I would imagine its some TCP work done in a BH. I wouldn't worry too much.
Robert Love
- 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/
|  |