Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 08:30:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Bill Huey <bhuey@lnxw.com>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>,
       Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@mvista.com>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, dwalker@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org,
       akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RT patch acceptance
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505281953570.12903@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505310828450.12903@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
References: <m1br6zxm1b.fsf@muc.de> <1117044019.5840.32.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net>
 <20050526193230.GY86087@muc.de> <1117138270.1583.44.camel@sdietrich-xp.vilm.net>
 <20050526202747.GB86087@muc.de> <4296ADE9.50805@yahoo.com.au>
 <20050527120812.GA375@nietzsche.lynx.com> <429715DE.6030008@yahoo.com.au>
 <20050527233645.GA2283@nietzsche.lynx.com> <4297EB57.5090902@yahoo.com.au>
 <20050528054503.GA2958@nietzsche.lynx.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505281953570.12903@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 838
Lines: 23

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2005, Bill Huey wrote:
> 
> > > It isn't clear to me yet. I'm sure you can make your interrupt
> > > latencies look good, as with your scheduling latencies. But when
> > 
> > My project was getting a solid spike at 4 usec for irq-thread
> > startups and Ingo's stuff is better. It's already there.
> 
> Is that worst case?

So is that some sort of observable worst case value with a suitable 
stress test load? You didn't answer this in your reply. I'll be setting up 
my own test system soon to have a better look.

Thanks,
	Zwane
-
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/