On 11/16/12 18:31, Frank Rowand wrote: < snip > > I graphed the results with the msec data and with the nanosecond > timestamps for an artificial test (two test runs for each case): > > nanosecond: junk7.gif junk10.gif > msec: junk8_d.gif junk9_d.gif > > The cyclictest latency disruptions seem more visible to me in the > nanosecond data graphs. But that is just a first impression > without playing around with a lot of different data sets. John, Bhavesh, OK, so after all of that, I'm going on vacation for a week. I hope the rest of you are taking some time off too. My conclusion after my data creation and graphing exercise is that it might be good if people could play around with collecting and analyzing real histogram overflow data and see what data formats provide useful information. I think we should not rush the patch into John's tree so that we aren't stuck with a format or type of data that is not optimal. Bhavesh, if you created this feature based on a real world need (instead of just a brilliant mind exercise), it would be great if you could apply the latest iteration (or iterations in the near future) to your actual data collection and provide a real world example of how this feature makes cyclictest better. Thanks, Frank -- 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
