John Baldwin wrote: >On Wednesday 05 April 2006 17:40, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Tuesday 04 April 2006 20:33, Paolo Pisati wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>i updated my work on interrupt profiling with sone new >>>>experiments. >>>> >>>>In total we have now: >>>> >>>>-FreeBSD 4 PIC (no asm part) >>>>-FreeBSD 7 APIC >>>>-FreeBSD 7 PIC >>>>-FreeBSD 7 PREE APIC >>>>-FreeBSD 7 APIC JHB >>>> >>>>Some quick comments: >>>> >>>>-PIC is much slower in masking interrupt (7k in PIC vs 3k in APIC) >>>>-PREE let new thread save less than 500 ticks of 'queue' while >>>>preempted threads are often resumed after a lot >>>>-JHB patch shaved 2.5k ticks in interrupt masking op >>>> >>>>For graphs, data and more comments: >>>> >>>>http://mercurio.sm.dsi.unimi.it/~pisati/interrupt/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I'll commit the patch then. :) One thing you might try to do to better >>>measure the effects of preemption is to generate kernel work so that >>>the bge interrupts occur while the current thread is in the kernel >>>rather than in userland. In that case preemption should provide much >>>lower latency for interrupt handlers, as w/o preemption, an interrupt >>>in kernel mode won't run the ithread until either curthread blocks or >>>returns to userland. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>it looks a bit like the preempted threads shuld be put onto a stack of >>threads to resume >>so that when the pre-empter finishes, teh previosly active thread is >>resumed. >>Basically, a preempted thread should be put at the HEAD of it's run >>queue, and not the tail.. >> >> > >You changed the scheduler to already do that. > > oh, yeah,..... at least I'm consistent..Received on Thu Apr 06 2006 - 17:10:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:54 UTC