[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: rt20 scheduling latency testcase and failure data

* Sébastien Dugué <> wrote:

> > thanks for tracking this down. FYI, the latency of stopping the trace is
> > that expensive because we are copying large amounts of trace data
> > around, to ensure that /proc/latency_trace is always consistent and is
> > updated atomically, and to make sure that we can update the trace from
> > interrupt contexts too - without /proc/latency_trace accesses blocking
> > them. The latency of stopping the trace is hidden from the tracer itself
> > - but it cannot prevent indirect effects such as your app from missing
> > periods, if the periods are in the 5msec range.
> >
> Thanks for the explanation, will have to look deeper into the code
> to understand how it works though.

there's another complexity on SMP: if trace_all_cpus is set then the
per-cpu trace buffers are sorted chronologically as well while the
copying into the current-max-trace-buffer, to produce easier to read
latency_trace output.

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: 2006-05-18 10:59    [W:0.056 / U:11.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site