On Dienstag, 5. März 2002 03:29:03, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 21:22, Dieter Nützel wrote:
> > This is really weird.
> > I get results and my feeling was before it _is_ running with preemption on
> > 'cause it is smooth and speedy.
> >
> > preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.19-pre2-ac2-3.patch
> > Applied.
> >
> > But the numbers for latencytest0.42-png look ugly.
> > I'll enable DEBUG. Hope I find something.
>
> Let me know ... I really need to see comparisons. The above vs
> 2.4.19-pre2-ac2 with no preemption. Or 2.4.19-pre2 with just O(1) or
> 2.4.19-pre2 with rmap, etc ... I need to see a baseline (nothing) and
> then find out if it is rmap or O(1) causing the problem.
2.4.18 clean running OK, apart from the inherent slowness...;-)
> From your results, preemption is definitely working. It must be
> something else causing a bad mix...
Yep, FOUND it.
Ingo`s latest sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3 is the culprit!!!
Even with -ac (2.4.19-pre2-ac2) and together with -aa (latest here is
2.4.18-pre8-K3-VM-24-preempt-lock).
Below are the number for 2.4.18+sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3.
Have a look into the attachment, too.
Hopefully you or Ingo will find something out.
See yah.
Dieter
SunWave1 dbench/latencytest0.42-png# time ./do_tests none 3 256 0 350000000
x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5
The XFree86 Project, Inc server version 40200000 on :0.0
from SunWave1
Thu Mar 7 03:23:44 2002
Sync time adjustment is 0.1117 msecs.
3000 reps @ 1.7388 msec ( 575.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 1.7427 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 1.7416 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 1.7401 msec ( 575.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
3000 reps @ 1.7434 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
15000 trep @ 1.7413 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
800 reps @ 7.4185 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 7.4216 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 7.4239 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 7.4210 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
800 reps @ 7.4219 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
4000 trep @ 7.4214 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
13.5ms ( 13)|
1MS num_time_samples=43483 num_times_within_1ms=35936 factor=82.643792
2MS num_time_samples=43483 num_times_within_2ms=43447 factor=99.917209
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
321.2ms ( 16)|
1MS num_time_samples=19656 num_times_within_1ms=18006 factor=91.605617
2MS num_time_samples=19656 num_times_within_2ms=19563 factor=99.526862
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
79.1ms ( 36)|
1MS num_time_samples=15681 num_times_within_1ms=11212 factor=71.500542
2MS num_time_samples=15681 num_times_within_2ms=15595 factor=99.451566
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
147.3ms (158)|
1MS num_time_samples=19290 num_times_within_1ms=18423 factor=95.505443
2MS num_time_samples=19290 num_times_within_2ms=19030 factor=98.652151
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:26 tmpfile2
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms
cpu latency = 1.160998 ms
484.1ms ( 64)|
1MS num_time_samples=14912 num_times_within_1ms=13493 factor=90.484174
2MS num_time_samples=14912 num_times_within_2ms=14783 factor=99.134925
PIXEL_PER_MS=103
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:26 tmpfile2
66.180u 17.240s 3:21.28 41.4% 0+0k 0+0io 10374pf+0w
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:58 EST