Re: PREEMPT_RT vs I-PIPE: the numbers, part 2

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:16:39PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> 
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > (And, yes, there are other CDFs lacking a 30us bulge that would be
> > consistent with a 55us "blue-moon" bulge -- so I guess I am asking
> > if you have the CDF or the raw latency measurements -- though the
> > data set might be a bit large...  And I would have to think about
> > how one goes about deriving individual-latency CDF(s) given a single
> > dual-latency CDF, assuming that this is even possible...)
> 
> This is a bandwidth issue. The compressed archive containing the
> interrupt latencies of all our test runs is 100MB. I could provide
> a URL _privately_ to a handful of individuals, but beyond that
> someone's going to have to host it.
> 
> Let me know if you want this.

The approach of measuring the target's and the logger's latencies 
separately is a -much- better approach than using strange mathematical
techniques with strange mathematical assumptions.  So please don't
waste any further time on my misguided request for the full data set!

> Of course, now that LRTBF is out there, others can generate their
> own data sets.

True enough!

						Thanx, Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/