On 18/05/15 22:17, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Xander Huff | 2015-05-14 17:45:04 [-0500]: > >> With no other processes running, I got the following results after a >> couple of hours on one of our devices: >> >> admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98 >> # /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us >> policy: fifo: loadavg: 0.01 0.07 0.12 1/176 1473 >> >> T: 0 ( 1373) P:98 I:1000 C:6503872 Min: 9 Act: 13 Avg: 13 Max: 51 >> T: 1 ( 1374) P:98 I:1500 C:4335914 Min: 9 Act: 12 Avg: 13 Max: 49 >> >> With a VI reading all default handles (raw, offset, scale, >> sampling_frequency) in /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:device0 constantly in >> a while loop, I got the following results after a couple hours on the >> same device: >> >> admin@Xander-roboRIO:~# cyclictest -S -m -p 98 >> # /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us >> policy: fifo: loadavg: 6.93 7.30 7.47 3/182 1530 >> >> T: 0 ( 1487) P:98 I:1000 C:4497008 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 21 Max: 69 >> T: 1 ( 1488) P:98 I:1500 C:2998005 Min: 11 Act: 20 Avg: 22 Max: 59 > > So there is an increase. And there is even a for-loop and I don't know > how deep it is nested. Anyway, do you think it is worth it or would it > be better to get rid of the raw-locks and simply push everything into > threaded context? > Certainly seems likely to be a better way forward to me but I don't really mind either way. J -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
