[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] voluntary-preempt-
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:
> 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


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.201 / U:5.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site