Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:01AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:57:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
..
> > Yes, I used "$ cyclictest -n -t1 -p80 -i1000" to measure the latency. So
> > far, I have not done other tests. Any recommendation?
> > As no-rt load I used "while ls; do ls /bin; done" in one telnet window
> > and "wh
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:45:01AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Luotao Fu wrote:
> >
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> ..
>> Do you st
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> Luotao Fu wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >>> ..
> Do you still get high latencies with
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Luotao Fu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> ..
Do you still get high latencies with:
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y
CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
CONFIG_NO_H
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:04PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Luotao Fu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > ..
> >> Do you still get high latencies with:
> >>
> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y
> >> CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
> >> CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
> >>
> >> Wit
Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> ..
>> Do you still get high latencies with:
>>
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y
>> CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
>> CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
>>
>> With this setting I have not yet realized latencies > 150us. Could you
>> please give it a try?
Hi,
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
..
> Do you still get high latencies with:
>
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_BOOST=y
> CONFIG_RCU_TRACE=y
> CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set
>
> With this setting I have not yet realized latencies > 150us. Could you
> please give it a try? If I change one of the parameter
Hi Fu,
Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I took some time today and went through Wolfgangs scenarios partly. Now
> some results from my side. I ran my tests on a 2.6.24-rt1
>
> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > I also did some more measurements and made, by chance, interesting
>> observations. I will sum
Hi,
I took some time today and went through Wolfgangs scenarios partly. Now
some results from my side. I ran my tests on a 2.6.24-rt1
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> I also did some more measurements and made, by chance, interesting
observations. I will summarize in more detail later on. Here a
resting
> observations. I will summarize in more detail later on. Here are some
> preliminary results. My high latencies of up to 570us (without latency
> tracer) seem to be caused mainly by the following setting:
OK, here is the full report.
I had the occasion to test Linux 2.6.24-rc8-rt
Hi Fu,
Luotao Fu wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:13:26AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> It builds and runs fine on my Icecube-MPC5200 board, now also with the
>> latency tracer enabled. That's great. Still, "cyclictest -n -p80 -i1000"
>> reports latencies up to 400 us and
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 15:53 +0100, Luotao Fu wrote:
> I was doing some tests on my mpc5200b Board to reproduce the high latency as
> measured by wolfgang.
>
> I ran some tests with
> while [ 1 ]; do ls /bin;done
> as non-rt workload, as in Wolfgangs Scenario.
>
Can you try enabling CRITICAL_P
Hi folks,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 11:13:26AM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> It builds and runs fine on my Icecube-MPC5200 board, now also with the
> latency tracer enabled. That's great. Still, "cyclictest -n -p80 -i1000"
> reports latencies up to 400 us and therefore I tried to trigger and s
the latency tracer and interpret the results?
>
> Could you put in this kind of log information inline next time? It makes
> it easier to review.
OK.
>
> Let's see ...
>
>> preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.24-rc8-rt1
>> -
put in this kind of log information inline next time? It makes
it easier to review.
Let's see ...
> preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.24-rc8-rt1
>
> latency: 39733427 us, #65536/1202801
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:17 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> [0.733248] TCP bind hash table entries: 2048 (order: 3, 57344
>>> bytes)
>>> [0.741132] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 2048 bind
>>> 2048)
>>>
Hello,
> We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
> downloaded from the location:
>
> http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
Compiled fine, runs fine on x86. No problems so far.
Later on I'll give it a try on ppc and sparc64.
Thanks,
Mariusz
Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:17 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> [0.733248] TCP bind hash table entries: 2048 (order: 3, 57344
>> bytes)
>> [0.741132] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 2048 bind
>> 2048)
>> [0.747981] TCP reno registered
>> [0.805896] k
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:17 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > [0.733248] TCP bind hash table entries: 2048 (order: 3, 57344
> > bytes)
> > [0.741132] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 2048 bind
> > 2048)
> > [0.747981] TCP reno
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:17 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> > [0.733248] TCP bind hash table entries: 2048 (order: 3, 57344
> > bytes)
> > [0.741132] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 2048 bind
> > 2048)
> > [0.747981] TCP reno
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 19:17 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> [0.733248] TCP bind hash table entries: 2048 (order: 3, 57344
> bytes)
> [0.741132] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 2048 bind
> 2048)
> [0.747981] TCP reno registered
> [0.805896] krcupreemptd setsched 0
> [
Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:13 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
>>> downloaded from the location:
>>>
>>> http://rt.et.redhat.com/downl
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:13 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
> > downloaded from the location:
> >
> > http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
>
> It builds and runs fine
cyclictest-914 |#0): new 39733427 us user-latency.
> bash-3.00# cat /proc/latency_trace > trace.log
>
I tested 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 on our phytec phyCORE-MPC5200B-tiny. I runned cyclictest
with exactly the same parameter as you used and made some non-rt Workload with
"hackbench 5"
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
> downloaded from the location:
>
> http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
It builds and runs fine on my Icecube-MPC5200 board, now also with the
latency tracer enabled. That's great. Still, &q
On Jan 16, 2008 8:27 PM, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
> downloaded from the location:
>
> http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
>
Up and running fine here:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ uname -a
Linux lig
We are pleased to announce the 2.6.24-rc8-rt1 tree, which can be
downloaded from the location:
http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
Information on the RT patch can be found at:
http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
Changes since 2.6.24-rc7-rt3
- ported to 2.6.24-rc8
- PPC bootup
29 matches
Mail list logo