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

* Lee Revell <> wrote:

> Also I have noticed a pattern with the XFree86 schedule() latencies,
> they all have a section like this:
> 04000002 0.003ms (+0.000ms): effective_prio (recalc_task_prio)
> 04000002 0.003ms (+0.000ms): enqueue_task (schedule)
> 00000002 0.006ms (+0.003ms): __switch_to (schedule)
> 00000002 0.088ms (+0.082ms): finish_task_switch (schedule)
> 00010002 0.090ms (+0.001ms): do_IRQ (finish_task_switch)

> I presume the 04000002 -> 00000002 is some interrupt being unmasked
> (or interrupts being globally enabled), then there's a 60-80 usec
> latency in schedule().

0x04000000 is PREEMPT_ACTIVE - which is just a bit we set to make sure
we dont try to preempt recursively.

but the XFree86 latency is interesting indeed. It could be the effect of
the now-enlarged ioperm() bitmap! 80 usecs is excessive.

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:0.351 / U:4.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site