From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261787AbVFKTTy (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:19:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261786AbVFKTTy (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:19:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:26525 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261787AbVFKTTl (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:19:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:14:48 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Kristian Benoit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, bhuey@lnxw.com, andrea@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, karim@opersys.com, 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: <20050611191448.GA24152@elte.hu> References: <42AA6A6B.5040907@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42AA6A6B.5040907@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 * Kristian Benoit wrote: > In the following, interrupts are triggered by the logger at every 1ms. > It would be interesting to redo such tests with shorter trigger times. > However, we wanted to keep the logger as "off-the-shelf" as possible. > > Interrupt response times (all in micro-seconds): how were interrupt response times measured, precisely? What did the target (measured) system have to do to respond to an interrupt? Did you use the RTC to measure IRQ latencies? Ingo