Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:55:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
Cc: rostedt@kihontech.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com
Subject: Re: queue_work from interrupt Real time preemption2.6.11-rc2-RT-V0.7.37-03
Message-ID: <20050401055539.GB24508@elte.hu>
References: <200502141240.14355.mgross@linux.intel.com> <200502170814.42903.mgross@linux.intel.com> <20050329085734.GA7074@elte.hu> <200503311041.05955.mgross@linux.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200503311041.05955.mgross@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 26


* Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> BTW:
> 
> My work on this has been mostly in the context of a 2.6 kernel based 
> generalization of a softIRQ as thread patch for 2.4 that enables 
> priority tuning of the bottom half processing as well as /proc support 
> for turning on and off the feature.  We got it to work.
> 
> However; I don't know what good workloads and metrics to measure the 
> goodness of the work look like.  If folks think priority tuning of 
> bottom half processing is worth persuing and can help me quantify its 
> effectiveness better than running a jitter test while doing a BONNIE 
> test run on a SCSI JBOD, then I'm happy to do more with this.

anything that generates a consistent interrupt rate is pretty good for 
testing. Networking is the most softirq-dependent code, so i'd say 
tbench over a real network ought to be a good benchmark.

	Ingo
-
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/