Kernel 2.6 Real-Time Benchmarks 40
An anonymous reader writes "This whitepaper at LinuxDevices.com includes benchmarks comparing the real-time performance of the vers. 2.4 and 2.6 linux kernels, based on LynuxWorks' BlueCat Linux 5.0 beta. The graphs compare the results for average and worst-case measurements of both interrupt response and task switch performance for the two kernels, running on a 1GHz Pentium III under relatively heavy load. Check it out -- there's an enormous improvement. The article also includes a rundown of other features of the new kernel that seem likely to be welcomed by embedded developers."
Wider Application? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping the benefits of these performance improvements aren't limited to single-purpose embedded devices.
Better interactive response (framebuffer, keyboard, mouse) would help desktop users, while some of the enterprise warehouse folks could use less interruption of important I/O tasks.
Maybe those aims can be achieved somewhat by these kernel improvements.
Re:Wider Application? (Score:3, Interesting)
accuracy up to 1msec is feasable by using a sufficiently fast machine (1GHz or more) with enough ram (512 at minimum) and VRAM (64min, more if you want speedy pics), removing network adapters & USB equip
Re:Wider Application? (Score:2, Informative)
You can use Tron too [slashdot.org].
Re:Wider Application? (Score:2)
- the univ has a windows-only network policy. It took me a bucket of sweat just to get authorisation for my OSX tiBook
- I need to develop an app that is used by 10 people. All of them use windows. Getting them to switch would take more effort than simply making them accept an (occasional) possible 1-5msec delay somewhere in their data.
- I have 10 years of experience with win32 development, zero years with linux
Re:Wider Application? (Score:1)
Talk to your computer science department (Score:1, Interesting)
Assumeing you have one, this is a job for your computer science department. They have the people who know how to do this, and you can get plenty of under grads who will work cheap for expirence and their name on a paper.
A true CS department will also not be so windows focused, and help you fight the IS fools^h^h^h^h^hpeople who insist they know the best way to do your job.
Re:Wider Application? (Score:3)
Did Microsoft pay them to do this? Was it an overt payment or an under the table bribe?
it doesn't say (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the interactivity patches? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't followed those discussions back to the beginning, so I don't know if they're gilding the lilly. But the intense work on interactive scheduling *now* scares me about like the late work on the VM did with the 2.4.0 release.
Just like the VM was the Achilles heel of 2.4 will interactive response, particularly playing music on a system under load, be the bane of 2.6?
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:5, Interesting)
Performance is, however, much better than with 2.4.
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:1)
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:2, Interesting)
They're refering to skipping under load (think compiling a kernel, transcoding video, decompressing large data, etc).
In 2.6, it skips for the first 30secs before the schedualer can see that its an interactive task.
In 2.4, it skips until the song is done because the kernel isnt much on caring about 'interactive tasks'.
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:1)
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:2)
A lot of what the schedualing stuff does relies on nice levels.
man nice for a full description, but basicly a lower nice level is higher priority, max is -10.
The kernel also learns what tasks are interactive based on how often they sleep, but they should also respect nice level.
I generaly keep X at -5, mozilla at -5, and xmms at -10
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:1)
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:3, Insightful)
That only shows that xmms is not taking advantage of the new possibilities on the 2.6 kernel. It is up to the application to set priorities between tasks/threads, it is not something the kernel will do by itself. Properly set priorities will get you a much better sound experience o
Re:What about the interactivity patches? (Score:2)
May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:3, Interesting)
May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday [slashdot.org]? And maybe throw in one of my responses for good measure? Again, not trolling - just looking for all the information I can amass.
Thanks.
Re:May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:3, Informative)
Taken from the article you reference:
SO... they compared a RTOS with an (admitedly) non-realtime OS? I'm not surprised at the results.
RedHat markets ELDS as an OS for embedded systems. Not all embedded systems require realtime performance. Heck, even systems that require realtime performance don't always require the level of performance that QNX can deliver. There's a large number of embedded systems for which even plain Lin
Re:May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:1)
Re:May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:1, Informative)
Turns out these medical types are absolutely freakin' paranoid about their double blind tests.
Think Team A/Team B analysis at the CIA, but in a laboratory setting, it's more like Team A prepares the dosages [placebo ver
Re:May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:2, Informative)
Try RTAI [polimi.it]. It's a patch to allow hard realtime performance on GNU/Linux systems.
Re:May I re-ask the question I asked on Monday? (Score:1)
Re:Linux 2.6 != operating system (Score:4, Informative)
bullshit (Score:3)
Re:bullshit (Score:2)
It's not quite like saying your brain is a human being, it's like saying the brain is the operating system for your body, which is essentially true in nearly all respects. The human body in your analogy would be the hardware, and in that respect brain is to operating system as human being is to computer.
I'm not saying that the operating system is everything that is software on the
Beware TCQ on 2.6.0 (Score:4, Informative)
LKML verified it and I've experienced it personally -- TCQ on IBM Deathstar drives (mine were 60G, the LKML was 120G IIRC) can cause massive fs corruption.
Apparently a queue depth of 8 (the default it seems) is the specific culprit. LKML seems to say that TCQ of 32 works but I've turned it off entirely now.
It's marked experimental for a reason. :-)
Still performing poorly (Score:1, Troll)
The QNX NEUTRINO RTOS v6.2 and Embedded Linux Developer's Suite v1.1 were evaluated against the
same criteria and test suite.
The QNX NEUTRINO RTOS v6.2 performed very well during this evaluation. None of the performance or stress tests revealed any problems and the RTOS was fast, predictable and reliable at all times. The QNX NEUTRINO RTOS is also the only RTOS that has a true message-based client-server architecture well equipped to handle today's requirements concerning distribute
Good Job, SCO! (Score:3, Funny)
It would be nice if... (Score:2)
Sorry. I WANTED to test it, but it doesn't work, and I don't know enough to fix it. Something about previous declarations of define's.