Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750825AbVL3Mk2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:40:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751253AbVL3Mk2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:40:28 -0500 Received: from general.keba.co.at ([193.154.24.243]:39726 "EHLO helga.keba.co.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbVL3Mk1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:40:27 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Latency traces I cannot interpret (sa1100, 2.6.15-rc7-rt1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:40:20 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Latency traces I cannot interpret (sa1100, 2.6.15-rc7-rt1) Thread-Index: AcYNFOROOtTGhE/fSYar3xmaorVNlgAJoXlQ From: "kus Kusche Klaus" To: "Ingo Molnar" , "Lee Revell" Cc: "linux-kernel" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1958 Lines: 51 > From: Ingo Molnar > there seem to be leaked preempt counts: > > -0 0.n.1 8974us : touch_critical_timing (cpu_idle) > > we should never have preemption disabled in cpu_idle(). To > debug leaked > preemption counts, enable CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT. Something really fishy is going on here: That 9 ms latency seems to be really *idle* time! * If the box is idle, I get that trace almost immediately, and almost always with close to 9 ms (system clock is 100 Hz, i.e. 10 ms tick period). * If the box is 100 % loaded, I don't get that trace. I get different traces from different processes, mostly shorter than 9 ms. * If I load the box with work at regular intervals and idle time in between, I get traces identical to the 9 ms idle trace, but consistently shorter. If I throw a flood ping with 1000 pkt/s against my box, the idle trace shows up with 800 or 900 microseconds, i.e. the idle time between packets. Now, is the tracer wrong, or has the idle time a wrong status? By the way, I had one trace today where the cat /proc/latency_trace itself showed up: \ / ||||| \ | / cat-3129 0D... 1us!: preempt_schedule_irq (svc_preempt) cat-3129 0.... 5502us+: rt_up (l_start) cat-3129 0D..1 5511us+: check_raw_flags (rt_up) cat-3129 0...1 5514us+: rt_up (l_start) cat-3129 0...1 5518us : sub_preempt_count_ti (rt_up) What's happening in those 5 ms? -- Klaus Kusche (Software Development - Control Systems) KEBA AG Gewerbepark Urfahr, A-4041 Linz, Austria (Europe) Tel: +43 / 732 / 7090-3120 Fax: +43 / 732 / 7090-6301 E-Mail: kus@keba.com WWW: www.keba.com - 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/