On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Darren Hart wrote: > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:15:03 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Jaswinder Singh wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 2007 1:04 PM, Darren Hart <dvhltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > # ./cyclictest -n -i 10000 -l 10000 -p 95 > > > > > > 10000 (10 milliseconds) interval seems to be quite big for current > > > machine. 10 milliseconds is good for 10 to 15 years old machine but > > > not for latest machines. > > > > > > I think we should try -i 1000 or -i 4000 . > > > > heh, I test with -i 250. > > Someone, I'm sorry I can't recall who atm, suggested that using a larger > interval would allow for more variance to be introduced - not keeping the > caches so hot for this particular test by not spending so much time on the > cpu. Is this a valid approach? Perhaps running multiple runs with both very > tight intervals (like Steve's case) and some longer intervals to ensure we > can handle both cases - since both are common in practice. > I don't think it would hurt to test both cases. Perhaps three kinds. -i 250 -i 1000 -i 10000 do them separately, and that should give us a good idea of running fast as well as cache cold. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
