Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:22:13 -0500 | From | "K.R. Foley" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P7 |
| |
Lee Revell wrote: > On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 20:06, K.R. Foley wrote: > >>I just posted a similar trace of ~4141 usec from P6 here: >> >>http://www.cybsft.com/testresults/2.6.8.1-P6/latency-trace1.txt >> > > > This looks wrong: > > 00000003 0.008ms (+0.001ms): dummy_socket_sock_rcv_skb (tcp_v4_rcv) > 00000004 0.008ms (+0.000ms): tcp_v4_do_rcv (tcp_v4_rcv) > 00000004 0.009ms (+0.000ms): tcp_rcv_established (tcp_v4_do_rcv) > 00010004 3.998ms (+3.989ms): do_IRQ (tcp_rcv_established) > 00010005 3.999ms (+0.000ms): mask_and_ack_8259A (do_IRQ) > 00010005 4.001ms (+0.002ms): generic_redirect_hardirq (do_IRQ) > 00010004 4.002ms (+0.000ms): generic_handle_IRQ_event (do_IRQ) > > Probably a false positive, Ingo would know better. What kind of stress > testing were you doing? > > Lee >
This is while running the stress-kernel suite. I don't know about it being a false possitive, it very well may be. Looking back through the logs though I am not sure this is a valid latency anyway. This trace was from 06:37 this morning. About 19:54 last night I got an oops in kswapd and this morning around 10:30ish I had stuff getting killed right and left by oom. So, I am thinking that this probably is not a very reliable test.
kr
- 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/
| |