From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760656AbZBMUDX (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:03:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750713AbZBMUDP (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:03:15 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f20.google.com ([209.85.220.20]:48038 "EHLO mail-fx0-f20.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752760AbZBMUDN (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:03:13 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=oj3z4OSyKKnHcm77gM5fbQfuopfZYQn7IA3npWpU49cam03lQ79sjwk39c/eVKDYHU 5a69SPamYG2mwgLZYr9sqevjwG+oEeS5cfOFah4QAXP0vRE6A52IqnDbVgj9AeITDSie h/cDS3h+PNe/ullQDF8GpNs23TvTQ1MSS68EM= Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:03:08 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , rt-users , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Carsten Emde , Clark Williams Subject: Re: [patch] rt: sysprof hrtimer fix Message-ID: <20090213200305.GA5833@nowhere> References: <20090213004812.GA5824@nowhere> <20090213021626.GA5807@nowhere> <20090213030919.GA5826@nowhere> <20090213072601.GA26946@elte.hu> <20090213120451.GA5782@nowhere> <20090213124928.GC5483@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090213124928.GC5483@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 01:49:28PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > So, just a thing. > > -rt make the hrtimer's timers running on softirq context because the hrtimer_interrupt > > doesn't run as a threaded interrupt, and then it is not preemptible right? > > > > In that case, sysprof will continue to run in hardirq context, as before, and > > it will considerably increase the latency. And that matters here. > > So I think it is important to put it on the reminder: > > hm, not sure. Do you know it numerically how much worst-case overhead it > induces? > > Ingo Not at all. But when I find some time, I will compare some rt average tests with and without sysprof.