lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Latency Tracer, voluntary-preempt-2.6.8-rc4-O6

* James Courtier-Dutton <James@superbug.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I have found a new problem though:
>
> # cat latency_trace
> preemption latency trace v1.0
> -----------------------------
> latency: 1883455195 us, entries: 1 (1)
> process: ksoftirqd/1/5, uid: 0
> nice: -10, policy: 0, rt_priority: 0
> =======>
> 0.000ms (+0.000ms): cond_resched_softirq (___do_softirq)
>
> That looks bad to me. The user did not notice any latency, but 1883
> seconds seems like a high latency to me!

yeah, it doesnt look healthy. This could be some sort of tracing
underflow - what is the 'grep MHz /proc/cpuinfo' value of your box?

Also, could you try the -P4 patch, it has a more robust timestamping
mechanism.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.209 / U:2.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site