* Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > please retest using recent (i.e. today's) -RT kernels. There were a
> > whole bunch of fixes that could affect these numbers.
>
> At this point, we're bound to rerun some of the tests. But there's
> only so many times that one can claim that such and such test isn't
> good enough because it doesn't have all the latest bells and whistles.
> Surely there's more to this overhead than just rudimentary bugfixes.
well, it was your choice to benchmark ADEOS against PREEMPT_RT, right?
You posted numbers that showed your project in a favorable light while
the PREEMPT_RT numbers were more than 100% off. Your second batch of
numbers showed a tie, but we still dont know the true correct PREEMPT_RT
irq latency values on your hardware, because your testing still had
bugs. So a minimum requirement would be to post accurate numbers - you
have started this after all.
this thread showcases one of the many reasons why 'vendor sponsored
benchmarking' is such a bad idea. I wont post benchmark numbers
comparing PREEMPT_RT to 'other' realtime projects. I'm obviously biased,
everyone else sees me as biased, so what's the point? Should i pretend
i'm not biased towards the stuff i wrote? That would be hypocritical
beyond recognition. I dont benchmark PREEMPT_RT against other projects
because i know it perfectly well that it is the best thing since sliced
bread ;)
Ingo
-
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]
