Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> see above. (It's no secret, i described components of this workload in 
> one of my first mails to the adeos thread.

I remembered your description, but it's always nice to see exactly
what's being done. Thanks very much for sending this, we'll integrate
it into the LRTBF.

> Btw., what happened to adeos 
> irq latency testing?)

It got obsoleted by the ipipe testing. It's basically the same thing.
What we were testing in the first released testbench was the usage
of the interrupt pipeline in adeos. Now that Philippe has forked it
out to make it more straightforward for people to look at (instead of
thinking they are looking at a true full nanokernel), it was just
the appropriate thing to do to use the I-pipe patch instead. The
mechansim being measured is exactly the same thing.

Karim
-- 
Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant
Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits
http://www.opersys.com || [email protected] || 1-866-677-4546
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux