[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <TYCP286MB19133894C3D15F11A9DB62A9A1389@TYCP286MB1913.JPNP286.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:02:10 +0800
From: Oscar Shiang <oscar0225@...email.tw>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nitesh Lal <nilal@...hat.com>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alex Belits <abelits@...its.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v11 00/13] extensible prctl task isolation interface and vmstat sync
Hi Marcelo,
I tried to apply your patches to kernel v5.15.18-rt28 and measured
the latencies through oslat [1].
It turns out that the peak latency (around 100us) can drop to about 90us.
The result is impressive since I only changed the guest's kernel
instead of installing the patched kernel to both host and guest.
However, I am still curious about:
1) Why did I catch a bigger maximum latency in almost each of the
results of applying task isolation patches? Or does it come from
other reasons?
2) Why did we only get a 10us improvement on quiescing vmstat?
[1]: The result and the test scripts I used can be found at
https://gist.github.com/OscarShiang/8b530a00f472fd1c39f5979ee601516d#testing-task-isolation-via-oslat
Thanks,
Oscar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists