* Jörn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 November 2007 14:43:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > http://redhat.com/~mingo/latency-tracing-patches/latency-tracing-v2.6.24-rc3.combo.patch
> >
> > does it work any better?
>
> It compiles. It boots with a 512M RAM (384M was too little with all
> the other debug options on). But it seems to lock up when running
> trace-cmd. On a rerun it locks up again, but with different output.
hm, you should decrease MAX_TRACE in kernel/latency_tracing.c from 1
million to 16K or so. 1 million entries probably depletes lowmem quite
seriously.
> Rerun was captured:
> http://logfs.org/~joern/trace1.jpg
hm, that looks weird. if you disable CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, does that
improve things? (or just turns a noisy lockup into a silent lockup?)
> I should do a couple of runs, but my girlfriend claims realtime
> priority for the evening.
yeah, SCHED_IDLE is not generally well received by them.
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]
