Re: Improving ARM7 platform performance with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hartmut,

I have patched a 3.2 kernel for a OMAP compatible processor (ARM
Cortex A8) to be used on an Gumstix Overo with the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
patch.

I have noticed that the latency of the patched kernel on this platform
is<300usec (using cyclictest), similar to what is reported for the
ARM9 platforms at
https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_Patch

Is this the best performance that can be expected from ARM7/9 platforms?
No, some of them have latencies below 100 us.

For a comparison of the various ARM platforms, revisions and versions, you may refer to the OSADL QA Farm.

Relatively long latencies (this is a know CPU cache issue):
- Rack #2, Slot #1
  ARM926EJ-S rev 4 (v5l), Phytec/phyCARD-i.MX27
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=990
- Rack #2, Slot #2
  ARMv7 rev 3 (v7l), Phytec/phyCARD-L OMAP3525
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=988

Short latencies:
- Rack #0, Slot #5
  ARMv7 rev 5 (v7l), Freescale/MX53 Quickstart Board (LOCO)
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=1351
- Rack #1, Slot #7
  ARMv6-compatible rev 3 (v6l), (undisclosed)
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=1335
- Rack #2, Slot #3
  ARMv7 rev 7 (v7l), Texas Instruments/OMAP3517/AM3517 EVM
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=887
- Rack #2, Slot #8
  ARMv6-compatible rev 3 (v6l), Phytec/PhyCARD-M pca101
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=920
- Rack #4, Slot #4
  ARMv7 Processor rev 10 (v7l)x2, Texas Instruments OMAP4/Pandaboard
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=911
- Rack #5, Slot #5
  Feroceon 88FR131 rev 1 (v5l), Marvell/SheevaPlug
  Latency plot -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=881

Could it be improved by using different kernel config settings - e.g.
CONFIG_LATENCY_TRACE=n  -
https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cyclictest mentions that latency
tracing adds significant kernel overhead?
CONFIG_LATENCY_TRACE no longer is a valid kernel configuration item. But even if you configure a valid tracing configuration, this will not lead to a relevant increase of the system's latencies, since tracing must explicitly be enabled to become effective, such as
# echo <your tracer here> >/sys/kernel/debug/tracing/current_tracer
or using cyclictest's trace options.

Of course, a particular kernel config may lead to long latencies. To check your kernel configuration, you may compare it to the kernel configurations of the OSADL QA Farm systems that are given at the bottom of the system profiles, the overview is here -> https://www.osadl.org/?id=1084.

Hope this helps,
	-Carsten.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [RT Stable]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux