Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P7

[K.R. Foley]

Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 20:06, K.R. Foley wrote:
>
>>I just posted a similar trace of ~4141 usec from P6 here:
>>
>>http://www.cybsft.com/testresults/2.6.8.1-P6/latency-trace1.txt
>>
>
>
> This looks wrong:
>
> 00000003 0.008ms (+0.001ms): dummy_socket_sock_rcv_skb (tcp_v4_rcv)
> 00000004 0.008ms (+0.000ms): tcp_v4_do_rcv (tcp_v4_rcv)
> 00000004 0.009ms (+0.000ms): tcp_rcv_established (tcp_v4_do_rcv)
> 00010004 3.998ms (+3.989ms): do_IRQ (tcp_rcv_established)
> 00010005 3.999ms (+0.000ms): mask_and_ack_8259A (do_IRQ)
> 00010005 4.001ms (+0.002ms): generic_redirect_hardirq (do_IRQ)
> 00010004 4.002ms (+0.000ms): generic_handle_IRQ_event (do_IRQ)
>
> Probably a false positive, Ingo would know better.  What kind of stress
> testing were you doing?
>
> Lee
>

This is while running the stress-kernel suite. I don't know about it
being a false possitive, it very well may be. Looking back through the
logs though I am not sure this is a valid latency anyway. This trace was
from 06:37 this morning. About 19:54 last night I got an oops in kswapd
and this morning around 10:30ish I had stuff getting killed right and
left by oom. So, I am thinking that this probably is not a very reliable
test.

kr

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/