Messages in this thread | | | From | Dieter Nützel <> | Subject | Re: latencytest0.42-png looks weird for 2.4.19-pre2-ac2-prlo | Date | Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:41:27 +0100 |
| |
On Dienstag, 5. März 2002 03:29:03, you wrote: > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 21:22, Dieter Nützel wrote: > > This is really weird. > > I get results and my feeling was before it _is_ running with preemption on > > 'cause it is smooth and speedy. > > > > preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.19-pre2-ac2-3.patch > > Applied. > > > > But the numbers for latencytest0.42-png look ugly. > > I'll enable DEBUG. Hope I find something. > > Let me know ... I really need to see comparisons. The above vs > 2.4.19-pre2-ac2 with no preemption. Or 2.4.19-pre2 with just O(1) or > 2.4.19-pre2 with rmap, etc ... I need to see a baseline (nothing) and > then find out if it is rmap or O(1) causing the problem.
2.4.18 clean running OK, apart from the inherent slowness...;-)
> From your results, preemption is definitely working. It must be > something else causing a bad mix...
Yep, FOUND it. Ingo`s latest sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3 is the culprit!!! Even with -ac (2.4.19-pre2-ac2) and together with -aa (latest here is 2.4.18-pre8-K3-VM-24-preempt-lock).
Below are the number for 2.4.18+sched-O1-2.4.18-pre8-K3. Have a look into the attachment, too.
Hopefully you or Ingo will find something out.
See yah. Dieter
SunWave1 dbench/latencytest0.42-png# time ./do_tests none 3 256 0 350000000 x11perf - X11 performance program, version 1.5 The XFree86 Project, Inc server version 40200000 on :0.0 from SunWave1 Thu Mar 7 03:23:44 2002
Sync time adjustment is 0.1117 msecs.
3000 reps @ 1.7388 msec ( 575.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels 3000 reps @ 1.7427 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels 3000 reps @ 1.7416 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels 3000 reps @ 1.7401 msec ( 575.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels 3000 reps @ 1.7434 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels 15000 trep @ 1.7413 msec ( 574.0/sec): Scroll 500x500 pixels
800 reps @ 7.4185 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square 800 reps @ 7.4216 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square 800 reps @ 7.4239 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square 800 reps @ 7.4210 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square 800 reps @ 7.4219 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square 4000 trep @ 7.4214 msec ( 135.0/sec): ShmPutImage 500x500 square
fragment latency = 1.451247 ms cpu latency = 1.160998 ms 13.5ms ( 13)| 1MS num_time_samples=43483 num_times_within_1ms=35936 factor=82.643792 2MS num_time_samples=43483 num_times_within_2ms=43447 factor=99.917209 PIXEL_PER_MS=103 fragment latency = 1.451247 ms cpu latency = 1.160998 ms 321.2ms ( 16)| 1MS num_time_samples=19656 num_times_within_1ms=18006 factor=91.605617 2MS num_time_samples=19656 num_times_within_2ms=19563 factor=99.526862 PIXEL_PER_MS=103 fragment latency = 1.451247 ms cpu latency = 1.160998 ms 79.1ms ( 36)| 1MS num_time_samples=15681 num_times_within_1ms=11212 factor=71.500542 2MS num_time_samples=15681 num_times_within_2ms=15595 factor=99.451566 PIXEL_PER_MS=103 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile fragment latency = 1.451247 ms cpu latency = 1.160998 ms 147.3ms (158)| 1MS num_time_samples=19290 num_times_within_1ms=18423 factor=95.505443 2MS num_time_samples=19290 num_times_within_2ms=19030 factor=98.652151 PIXEL_PER_MS=103 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:26 tmpfile2 fragment latency = 1.451247 ms cpu latency = 1.160998 ms 484.1ms ( 64)| 1MS num_time_samples=14912 num_times_within_1ms=13493 factor=90.484174 2MS num_time_samples=14912 num_times_within_2ms=14783 factor=99.134925 PIXEL_PER_MS=103 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:25 tmpfile -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 350000000 Mär 7 03:26 tmpfile2 66.180u 17.240s 3:21.28 41.4% 0+0k 0+0io 10374pf+0w[unhandled content-type:application/x-tgz] | |