Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:40:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:40:49 -0500 Received: from hq2.fsmlabs.com ([209.155.42.199]:58641 "HELO hq2.fsmlabs.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 00:40:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 22:33:48 -0700 From: Victor Yodaiken To: Davide Libenzi Cc: Victor Yodaiken , Mike Kravetz , Momchil Velikov , george anzinger , lkml Subject: Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ... Message-ID: <20011223223348.A20895@hq2> In-Reply-To: <20011223171802.A19931@hq2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Organization: FSM Labs Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 05:31:11PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Victor Yodaiken wrote: > > > > > > > Run a "RT" task that is scheduled every millisecond (or time of your > > choice) > > while(1`){ > > read cycle timer > > clock_nanosleep(time period using aabsolute time > > read cycle timer - what was actual delay? track worst > > case > > } > > > > Run this > > a) on aaaaaaaaan unstressed system > > b) under stress > > c) while a timed non-rt benchmark runs to figure out "RT" > > overhead. > > I've coded a test app that uses the LatSched latency patch ( that uses > rdtsc ). > It basically does 1) set the current process priority to RT 2) an ioctl() > to activate the scheduler latency sampler 3) sleep for 1-2 secs 4) ioctl() > to stop the sampler 5) peek the sample with pid == getpid(). > In this way i get the net RT task scheduler latency. Yes it does not get > the real one that includes accessories kernel paths but my code does not > affect these ones. And they add noise to the measure. Seems to me that you are not testing what apps see. Internal benchmarks are useful only for figuring out how to remove bottlenecks that effect actual user apps - in my humble opinion of course. The nice thing about my benchmark is that it actually tests something useful - how well you can do periodic tasks. BTW, on RTLinux we get under 100 microseconds on even 50Mhzx PPC860 - 17us on a 800Mhz K7. I'd be happy to see some decent numbers in Linux, but you gotta measure something more applied. > > > > > - Davide > - 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/