Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:16a7:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id gp39csp1408155pxb; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 08:09:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAzGXHnRJFf1qQsXofzS9AYmPu7LKZeV7eZqzk8u/Dz5jiCBUyZAyg5URLDec+fNv1F97c X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:8144:: with SMTP id z4mr19239268ejw.251.1604506176859; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 08:09:36 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1604506176; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MC5OTi67NGxV62tQzwhYI7Xy0bnbwOSaZEtnZqW9QvhrrD62JDMp69w5XTM2Iti08k ZQz22/PDti9Qtpyw61PkQMpba/lyMEvizDKVJGXOajW5pmvEBTI66T4B1zgdmz0Z4sfZ pUuWp1YuYo60TCVTzJPSuJ8iAjHH6CdKrSeCFThMlF0Eq2l5TfcGL/qfX/dN/O0utjJ/ axGDEAf38eVDUURkxTbOk//Jn6cjYogGyMaN49vkPvLeHwQbSNI8F4ppq40SRyaS2D0M r98j1XLR21SFzpPnjnO6K5VE5sv8dP6UfMC7eZeOXkdqixgmrHYNzqEcz3iFFKtNrtBQ uDew== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=JhYpkGXyWQkDDYJV0L80iwvY1sJQOg++OJLFmmxUAqY=; b=cQUu9znIvkT+yF9SiC8yZzgzL5sZ7Qw7SkiQpin1X+ZcuqHq50tXlphzMdAEJY+zPV 5jwQfulntm9QRXSIejK+zmz3cKLBBFXUUsztnE+63M11envqznKwcXmpRmTJsSeNyNbb E6XKtAJ2BcfnPUR1b32qq6LLpxxMKAEG69yXpiEWA2IQvTXILdY7aKSNwsNYs1qOXCIX Omij5lidmYPYoM88/ro25fnOMfF8PTktzzpXVQssZFiFHUrn3VK2vMoPp6VNuLGDswxC zMWyToMBNngHf7RfdMmiut4EWxloy8kInhaxGgUYklBb80wtgTZMYq3+hBQh4bGGAhs4 PUow== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=monom.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n12si1630735edq.44.2020.11.04.08.09.12; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 08:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=monom.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729457AbgKDQGz (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:06:55 -0500 Received: from mail.monom.org ([188.138.9.77]:36944 "EHLO mail.monom.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727070AbgKDQGz (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:06:55 -0500 Received: from mail.monom.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filter.mynetwork.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F24500609; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:06:51 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on mail.monom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from localhost (unknown [94.31.100.251]) by mail.monom.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F848500596; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:06:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:06:50 +0100 From: Daniel Wagner To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , linux-rt-users , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.10-rc2-rt4 Message-ID: <20201104160650.b63zqof74wohgpa2@beryllium.lan> References: <20201103195731.erjkgyzxzzjylhui@linutronix.de> <20201104103809.bhl2iorbwv6xowtw@beryllium.lan> <20201104104617.ueefmpdou4t3t2ce@linutronix.de> <20201104111948.vpykh3ptmysqhmve@beryllium.lan> <20201104124746.74jdsig3dffomv3k@beryllium.lan> <20201104130930.llx56gtqt532h7c7@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201104130930.llx56gtqt532h7c7@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 02:09:30PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Could you figure out if the arm64 thingy started with -rt4 or was > already in rt3? I wrote a quick and dirty script to extract the data from my logs to see if the regression might be older then I remembered. I filtered out the obviously wrong configured runs (e.g !RT). It looks like the first recorded outlier is around 5.9.0-rt16. Does this already help or do you want me to bissect it down? rpi3 signaltest 5.4.59-rt36 382 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 220.00 382 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 47.00 382 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 20.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.6.19-rt12 368 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 221.00 368 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 45.00 368 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 21.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.9.0-rc8-rt12 813 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 214.00 813 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 45.00 813 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 20.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.9.0-rc8-rt12 874 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 217.00 874 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 45.00 874 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 20.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.9.0-rt16 963 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 321.00 963 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 47.00 963 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 21.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.9.1-rt19 1038 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 341.00 1038 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 46.00 1038 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 20.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.9.1-rt20 1079 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 318.00 1079 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 47.00 1079 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 21.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.10.0-rc1-rt1 1118 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 415.00 1118 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 53.00 1118 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 23.00 rpi3 signaltest 5.10.0-rc2-rt4 1163 0_signaltest t0-max-latency : fail 340.00 1163 0_signaltest t0-avg-latency : pass 53.00 1163 0_signaltest t0-min-latency : pass 24.00