Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Preemption Latency Measurement Tool | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 20 Sep 2001 17:09:17 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 03:57, Dieter Nützel wrote: > You've forgotten a one liner. > > #include <linux/locks.h> > +#include <linux/compiler.h> > > But this is not enough. Even with reniced artsd (-20). > Some shorter hiccups (0.5~1 sec).
Note (I am repeated myself from an email I just sent) that the conditional schedule won't show better results if current->need_reschedule is unset, since preemption won't be enabled. I need to add explicit support to the preemption-test patch for this.
So you may see some better results, but just one time the condition schedule does not occur, you will see the worst result in /proc/latencytimes -- remembers its the 20 worst (perhaps we need average or total latency, too?)
Now, with all that said, you should _see_ an improvement with this patch. You say short hiccups. Some? All? How much better is it?
-- Robert M. Love rml at ufl.edu rml at tech9.net
- 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/
|  |