From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262548AbVFVV1j (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:27:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262376AbVFVVX7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:23:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:24270 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262529AbVFVVO0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:14:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:10:37 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Kristian Benoit , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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, Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2 Message-ID: <20050622211037.GB24029@elte.hu> References: <42B77B8C.6050109@opersys.com> <20050622011931.GF1324@us.ibm.com> <42B9845B.8030404@opersys.com> <20050622162718.GD1296@us.ibm.com> <1119460803.5825.13.camel@localhost> <20050622185019.GG1296@us.ibm.com> <20050622190422.GA6572@elte.hu> <42B9C777.8040202@opersys.com> <20050622202242.GA17301@elte.hu> <42B9D208.4080305@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42B9D208.4080305@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: > Hmm... well, I can't say I'm uninterested. Any chances we can get a > copy of the scripts you use to do the MOAILT (Mother Of All Irq > Latency Tests). my 'dohell' script is embarrasingly simple: while true; do dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile bs=1024000 count=1024; done & while true; do killall hackbench; sleep 5; done & while true; do ./hackbench 20; done & ( cd ltp-full-20040707; su mingo -c ./run40; ) & ping -l 100000 -q -s 10 -f v & du / & ./dortc & and i also start a preloaded flood-ping externally. ./dortc does: chrt -f 98 -p `pidof 'IRQ 8'` cd rtc_wakeup ./rtc_wakeup -f 8192 -t 100000 and ./run40 does: while true; do ./runalltests.sh -x 40; done it's not rocket science - i'm just starting a sensible mix of latency generators, without letting any of them dominate the landscape. > > [ I know the results i am seeing, but i wont > > post them as a counter-point because i'm obviously biased :-) I'll let > > people without an axe to grind do the measurements. ] > > That's an extra reason for giving us a copy (or pointing us to one) of > the script you use to run your tests :) see above. (It's no secret, i described components of this workload in one of my first mails to the adeos thread. Btw., what happened to adeos irq latency testing?) Ingo