[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P6
From:       Ingo Molnar <mingo () elte ! hu>
Date:       2004-08-21 9:10:36
Message-ID: 20040821091036.GA25864 () elte ! hu
[Download RAW message or body]


* Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com> wrote:

> Also I have noticed a pattern with the XFree86 schedule() latencies,
> they all have a section like this:
> 
> 04000002 0.003ms (+0.000ms): effective_prio (recalc_task_prio)
> 04000002 0.003ms (+0.000ms): enqueue_task (schedule)
> 00000002 0.006ms (+0.003ms): __switch_to (schedule)
> 00000002 0.088ms (+0.082ms): finish_task_switch (schedule)
> 00010002 0.090ms (+0.001ms): do_IRQ (finish_task_switch)

> I presume the 04000002 -> 00000002 is some interrupt being unmasked
> (or interrupts being globally enabled), then there's a 60-80 usec
> latency in schedule().

0x04000000 is PREEMPT_ACTIVE - which is just a bit we set to make sure
we dont try to preempt recursively.

but the XFree86 latency is interesting indeed. It could be the effect of
the now-enlarged ioperm() bitmap! 80 usecs is excessive.

	Ingo
-
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/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]