[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081111095439.GA30425@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
* Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm> wrote:
> > OTOH, unless i'm misreading them, it's a bit hard to compare them
> > visually: the integral of the histograms does not seem to be
> > constant, they dont seem to be normalized.
>
> The total number of measured intervals (between two almost-adjacent
> rdtsc's) is exactly the same for all histograms (10^10). Almost all
> measurements are of the "nothing happened" type, i.e., around 11
> clock cycles on this machine. The user time spent inside the
> rdtsctest program is almost independent of the load, but it measures
> time spent outside of the program... But what should be attributed
> to what effect is unclear to me at the moment.
a high-pass filter should be applied in any case, to filter out the
"nothing happened" baseline. Eliminating every delta below 500-1000
cycles would do the trick i think, all IRQ costs are at least 1000
cycles.
then a low-pass filter should be applied to eliminate non-irq noise
such as scheduling effects or expensive irqs (which are both
uninteresting to such analysis).
and then _that_ double-filtered dataset should be normalized: the
number of events should be made the same. (just clip the larger
dataset to the length of the smaller dataset)
> > It should be made constant for them to be comparable. (i.e. the
> > total number of irq hits profiled should be equal - or should be
> > normalized with the sum after the fact)
>
> Basically the difference between the "idle" and "hack10" versions
> should indicate the effect of extra interrupts (timer) and
> additional exceptions and cache effects due to context switching.
i was only looking at before/after duos, for the same basic type of
workload. Idle versus hackbench is indeed apples to oranges.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists