lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] v5.10-rc2-rt4
    Sorry for the late response, I had to reinstall my system after a FS
    corruption...

    On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:31:43PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
    > > These test run only very short with hackbench as worlkload (5 minutes).
    > > Though I running these tests now for more than year with v4.4-rt and
    > > some times the newer -rt releases and I've never seen the latency
    > > numbers above 200us unless something was broken. Given that 5 minutes is
    > > not really long, I'll let those test run for longer to see if I get the
    > > same results when they run for one hour.

    - 5.9.0-rc8-rt12, ca 5h
    T: 0 (11626) P:80 C:15092432 Min: 17 Act: 34 Avg: 43 Max: 226

    - 5.9.0-rc8-rt13, ca 1.5h
    T: 0 (24661) P:80 C:5581936 Min: 21 Act: 35 Avg: 45 Max: 250

    - 5.9.0-rc8-rt14, ca 1h
    T: 0 ( 942) P:80 C:6522320 Min: 20 Act: 27 Avg: 44 Max: 352

    This matches with the 5 minutes runs. -rt13 was still okay and -rt14
    is clearly worse.

    > > 5.10.0-rc2-rt4 vs 5.10.0-rc2-rt4(lazy preemption disabled)
    > >
    > > 0_cyclicdeadline t2-max-latency pass/pass 274.00/ 61.00 349.18%
    >
    > So the value went from 274us to 61us after disabling lazy-preempt?

    Yes, that was all I changed. I want to redo this measurement. It
    really looks a bit bogus. Though, one thing after the other :)

    Daniel

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-11 19:40    [W:2.961 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site