[ Adding linux-net to the mix ]
John Sigler wrote:
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 271 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 275 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 290 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 297 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0):
John Sigler wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 37XT-PIC-XTtimer
1: 2XT-PIC-XTi8042
2: 0XT-PIC-XTcascade
7: 0XT-PIC-XTacpi
10:175XT-P
John Sigler wrote:
Len Brown wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 37XT-PIC-XTtimer
1: 2XT-PIC-XTi8042
2: 0XT-PIC-XTcascade
7: 0XT-PIC-XTacpi
10:175XT-P
Len Brown wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 37XT-PIC-XTtimer
1: 2XT-PIC-XTi8042
2: 0XT-PIC-XTcascade
7: 0XT-PIC-XTacpi
10:175XT-PIC-XTeth2, Dt
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 10:05, John Sigler wrote:
> # cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0
>0: 37XT-PIC-XTtimer
>1: 2XT-PIC-XTi8042
>2: 0XT-PIC-XTcascade
>7: 0XT-PIC-XTacpi
> 10:175
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007 schrieb John Sigler:
> Karsten Wiese wrote:
>
> > John Sigler wrote:
> >
> >> Is there some form of priority inheritance? Does the IRQ handler get a
> >> priority boost if a high priority task is waiting for it?
> >
> > No. But that would be "nice to have".
>
> No to
Karsten Wiese wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
Is there some form of priority inheritance? Does the IRQ handler get a
priority boost if a high priority task is waiting for it?
No. But that would be "nice to have".
No to the first question? to the second question? or to both? :-)
In kernel/futex.
Am Mittwoch, 25. Juli 2007 schrieb John Sigler:
>
> Is there some form of priority inheritance? Does the IRQ handler get a
> priority boost if a high priority task is waiting for it?
No. But that would be "nice to have".
Karsten
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Ingo Molnar wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
does your test-app have higher priority than softirq--4 ?
PID 4 is [softirq-timer/0] and has priority 50 in SCHED_FIFO. My
process has priority 80 in SCHED_RR. It is waiting for IRQ10.
My user-space app has higher priority than ev
* John Sigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > does your test-app have higher priority than softirq--4 ?
>
> PID 4 is [softirq-timer/0] and has priority 50 in SCHED_FIFO. My
> process has priority 80 in SCHED_RR. It is waiting for IRQ10.
>
> My user-space app has higher priority than everything
(Dropping [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Ingo Molnar wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
With a pair of the following in the middle:
softirq--4 0 670us : call_rcu (rt_run_flush)
softirq--4 0D..1 670us : __rcu_advance_callbacks (call_rcu)
Any idea what went wrong in the above function trace? Why is
* John Sigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >With a pair of the following in the middle:
> >
> >softirq--4 0 670us : call_rcu (rt_run_flush)
> >softirq--4 0D..1 670us : __rcu_advance_callbacks (call_rcu)
> Any idea what went wrong in the above function trace? Why is the
> kernel sp
John Sigler wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
add 'notrace' to the definition of read_tsc in arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 271 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 275 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 290 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095
John Sigler wrote:
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 271 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 275 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 290 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 297 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 345 us user-latency.
( check
Ingo Molnar wrote:
add 'notrace' to the definition of read_tsc in arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 271 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 275 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 290 us user-latency.
( check_dektec_in-1095 |#0): new 297 us use
Ingo Molnar wrote:
add 'notrace' to the definition of read_tsc in arch/i386/kernel/tsc.c
OK.
(or do echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/trace_use_raw_cycles
if you are using recent enough -rt)
Is patch-2.6.20-rt8 recent enough?
# ./trace-it 1 >trace
# cat trace
preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.
* John Sigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ./trace-it 1 > trace.txt
> >
> > does it produce lots of trace entries? If not then
> > CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACING is not enabled. Once you see lots of output
> > in the file, the tracer is up and running and you can start tracing
> > the latency in yo
Ingo Molnar wrote:
John Sigler wrote:
Here's a /proc/latency_trace dump. What is there to understand?
# cat /proc/latency_trace
preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.20.7-rt8
latency: 26 us, #2/2, CPU#0 | (M:rt VP:0, KP:0,
* John Sigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a /proc/latency_trace dump. What is there to understand?
>
> # cat /proc/latency_trace
> preemption latency trace v1.1.5 on 2.6.20.7-rt8
>
> latency: 26 us, #2/2, CPU#0 | (M:rt
19 matches
Mail list logo
