From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:39:25 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix Message-ID: <20160628103925.GP18662@hermes.click-hack.org> References: <20160628083404.GI18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724022.8010904@sigmatek.at> <20160628091747.GK18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724333.6010608@sigmatek.at> <20160628092955.GL18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <577248AB.5070601@sigmatek.at> <20160628095543.GM18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <57724CFE.2050401@sigmatek.at> <20160628101957.GO18662@hermes.click-hack.org> <5772520E.8010407@sigmatek.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5772520E.8010407@sigmatek.at> Subject: Re: [Xenomai] Performance impact after switching from 2.6.2.1 to 2.6.4 List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Netbal Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:31:42PM +0200, Wolfgang Netbal wrote: > > > Am 2016-06-28 um 12:19 schrieb Gilles Chanteperdrix: > min: 10, max: 677, avg: 10.5048 -> 0.0265273 us > > Here are the output for Kernel 3.0.43 and Xenomai 2.6.2.1 > > #> ./tsc > min: 10, max: 667, avg: 11.5755 -> 0.029231 us Ok. So, first it confirms that the two configurations are running the processor at the same frequency. But we seem to see a pattern, the maxima in the case of the new kernel seems consistently higher. Which would suggest that there is some difference in the cache. What is the status of the two configurations with regard to the L2 cache write allocate policy? Could you show us the tsc results of Xenomai 2.6.4 with the 3.0 kernel ? -- Gilles. https://click-hack.org