Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sitsofe Wheeler
Date: Friday, September 19, 2008 - 4:54 am

Ingo Molnar wrote:

These two files appear to be identical. Is this intentional?

Anyway after following your instructions a putting together a small 
script to dice the output, I collated the 10 switches which took the 
longest:

# Top ten longest switches
# Rel TS Process   Abs TS
0.122161 hald-3423 1867.821170 ***
0.039438 <idle>-0  1867.379054
0.036318 hald-3423 1867.669009
0.031362 <idle>-0  1868.002762
0.030000 hald-3423 1867.699009
0.028933 <idle>-0  1867.529238
0.028539 <idle>-0  1867.228861
0.028196 <idle>-0  1867.128731
0.027763 <idle>-0  1868.101449
0.027513 <idle>-0  1867.028606

# tracer: sched_switch from around longest switch
#
#           TASK-PID   CPU#    TIMESTAMP  FUNCTION
#              | |      |          |         |
           <idle>-0     [00]  1867.608017:      0:140:R   +     3:115:S
           <idle>-0     [00]  1867.608038:      0:140:R   +  3423:120:D
           <idle>-0     [00]  1867.608045:      0:140:R ==>     3:115:R
      ksoftirqd/0-3     [00]  1867.608048:      3:115:S ==>  3423:120:R
             hald-3423  [00]  1867.629350:   3423:120:R   +  6096:120:S
             hald-3423  [00]  1867.632691:   3423:120:R   +  3827:120:S
             hald-3423  [00]  1867.669009:   3423:120:R   +  3998:120:S
             hald-3423  [00]  1867.699009:   3423:120:R   +  6097:120:S
          ***hald-3423  [00]  1867.821170:   3423:120:R ==>  6096:120:R
        rhythmbox-6096  [00]  1867.821219:   6096:120:S ==>  6097:120:R
        rhythmbox-6097  [00]  1867.821262:   6097:120:R   +  3826:120:S
        rhythmbox-6097  [00]  1867.821289:   6097:120:S ==>  3826:120:R
       pulseaudio-3826  [00]  1867.821332:   3826:120:R   +  6097:120:S
       pulseaudio-3826  [00]  1867.821374:   3826:120:S ==>  6097:120:R
        rhythmbox-6097  [00]  1867.821380:   6097:120:S ==>  3998:120:R
        rhythmbox-3998  [00]  1867.821709:   3998:120:S ==>  3827:120:R
       pulseaudio-3827  [00]  1867.824041:   3827:120:R   +  3826:120:S





I actually have both of these enabled but there's still no wakeup tracer 
(as mentioned in the git kernel documentation http://tinyurl.com/4f9s4l 
). The good news is that your instructions don't need the wakeup tracer.


I agree it would be nicer if it had a better name.


I have just gone away and read about the SMM ( 
http://blogs.msdn.com/carmencr/archive/2005/08/31/458609.aspx ). If 
you're right there is pretty much nothing that can be done about the 
problem : (
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Fri Sep 19, 4:54 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri Sep 19, 7:20 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Steven Rostedt, (Mon Sep 22, 5:07 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Mon Sep 22, 11:33 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 9:30 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 12:39 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 3:01 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Sun Sep 28, 1:56 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Mon Sep 29, 4:11 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 30, 6:18 am)