From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261718AbVFKOzA (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:55:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261719AbVFKOzA (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:55:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:6279 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261718AbVFKOy6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:54:58 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:52:40 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Kristian Benoit , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, bhuey@lnxw.com, andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, rpm@xenomai.org Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs ADEOS: the numbers, part 1 Message-ID: <20050611145240.GA10881@elte.hu> References: <42AA6A6B.5040907@opersys.com> <20050611070845.GA4609@elte.hu> <42AAF5CE.9080607@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42AAF5CE.9080607@opersys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > could you send me the .config you used for the PREEMPT_RT tests? Also, > > you used -47-08, which was well prior the current round of performance > > improvements, so you might want to re-run with something like -48-06 or > > better. > > Much to our dislike, we only noticed that we forgot to disable the > debug options after posting the results :/ So, in all fairness, we > will be redoing the tests on PREEMPT_RT early next week. [...] yeah, i suspected something like that - the PREEMPT_RT latency numbers were so out of whack with anything i've measured on similar boxes. The debugging features on PREEMPT_RT are powerful but have a high overhead. could you send me your PREEMPT_RT .config? (whichever version you have handy) That's the easiest way i can tell you which options to watch out for. Ingo