On 11/16/12 18:41, Frank Rowand wrote: > 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. I'm back... Bhavesh, have you had a chance to think about my last several emails (my comments on your latest patch, my proposed patch, and the email I'm responding to)? Any comments? > > 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
