>>> On 30.04.15 at 17:44, wrote:
> On 23/04/15 13:42, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 21/04/15 11:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.04.15 at 12:11, wrote:
We have analysed the affect of this series on interrupt latency (by
measuring the duration of irq disable/enable regions) and there is n
On 23/04/15 13:42, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 21/04/15 11:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.04.15 at 12:11, wrote:
>>> We have analysed the affect of this series on interrupt latency (by
>>> measuring the duration of irq disable/enable regions) and there is no
>>> signficant impact.
>>>
>>> http://
On 21/04/15 11:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.04.15 at 12:11, wrote:
>> We have analysed the affect of this series on interrupt latency (by
>> measuring the duration of irq disable/enable regions) and there is no
>> signficant impact.
>>
>> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dvrabel/bar2_comp.png
>
On 21/04/15 11:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
Despite both pictures saying micro-seconds at the respective axis (and
hence the problem not being _as bad_) - did the data collection reveal
where these IRQ disable regions are, so we could look into eliminating
them? (ISTR there being some open coded IRQ
>>> On 21.04.15 at 12:11, wrote:
> We have analysed the affect of this series on interrupt latency (by
> measuring the duration of irq disable/enable regions) and there is no
> signficant impact.
>
> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dvrabel/bar2_comp.png
Thanks for doing this!
> Interestingly, th
