Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 14/02/07, Markus Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> > Of course, irqloop runs in *primary* mode to be able to handle the
>> > events deterministically. So it is not directly affected by
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>>
>> If I start irqloop in User-Mode,
Markus Franke wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Of course, irqloop runs in *primary* mode to be able to handle the
>> events deterministically. So it is not directly affected by CONFIG_PREEMPT.
>
> If I start irqloop in User-Mode, a thread is simply created via Linux
> system call pthread_create() whi
On 14/02/07, Markus Franke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Of course, irqloop runs in *primary* mode to be able to handle the
> events deterministically. So it is not directly affected by CONFIG_PREEMPT.
If I start irqloop in User-Mode, a thread is simply created via Linux
system
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Of course, irqloop runs in *primary* mode to be able to handle the
> events deterministically. So it is not directly affected by CONFIG_PREEMPT.
If I start irqloop in User-Mode, a thread is simply created via Linux
system call pthread_create() which interacts with the
xeno_irqb
Markus Franke wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Markus Franke wrote:
>>> I am running some latency tests with irqbench/irqloop. I am wondering
>>> whether it would be possible to achieve better results when activating
>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARILY during the kernel
>>> configuration
Markus Franke wrote:
>> Hmm, I should have better said "tiny". This experience is based on
>> I-pipe tracer observations, and I guess you don't have that thing on,
>> have you?
>
> I have set:
>
> ---snip---
> # CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG is not set
> CONFIG_IPIPE_TRACE_ENABLE_VALUE=0
> ---snap---
>
> i
> Hmm, I should have better said "tiny". This experience is based on
> I-pipe tracer observations, and I guess you don't have that thing on,
> have you?
I have set:
---snip---
# CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG is not set
CONFIG_IPIPE_TRACE_ENABLE_VALUE=0
---snap---
in both kernels (either with preempt or wit
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Markus Franke wrote:
>>I am running some latency tests with irqbench/irqloop. I am wondering
>>whether it would be possible to achieve better results when activating
>>CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARILY during the kernel
>>configuration and running irqloop in User Mod
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Markus Franke wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am running some latency tests with irqbench/irqloop. I am wondering
>> whether it would be possible to achieve better results when activating
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARILY during the kernel
>> configuration and running
Markus Franke wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am running some latency tests with irqbench/irqloop. I am wondering
> whether it would be possible to achieve better results when activating
> CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARILY during the kernel
> configuration and running irqloop in User Mode ove
Dear all,
I am running some latency tests with irqbench/irqloop. I am wondering
whether it would be possible to achieve better results when activating
CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARILY during the kernel
configuration and running irqloop in User Mode over this kernel? Does it
make any s
11 matches
Mail list logo
