Gene,
I too see a big improvement in overall system performance by using taskset to
move linuxcnc to the idle core (I am running 2.5.0-pre2 built from source).
Out of curiosity how much cpu does Axis use on your machine? While running
Axis I am using about 60% of the second core. I don't
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 10:59 -0500, Tom Easterday wrote:
run the latency-test on the idle core AND run glxgears there (using
taskset to move it too), my latency is very bad.
That makes perfect sense: the video involved in glxgears locks out
interrupts for protracted periods, so running it on the
On Thursday, February 02, 2012 01:54:13 AM Tom Easterday did opine:
Gene,
I too see a big improvement in overall system performance by using
taskset to move linuxcnc to the idle core (I am running 2.5.0-pre2
built from source). Out of curiosity how much cpu does Axis use on
your machine?
On 01/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
snippage
Both machines have now been rebooted, it seems you can't reboot just one
end of an NFS link as the un-rebooted end of it will lock solid, needs a
reset button push to reboot within about 10 minutes. But that is
secondary. Faint memories
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 05:11:19 AM gene heskett did opine:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 01:49:57 AM gene heskett did opine:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 01:33:48 AM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
So at the moment, I'm back to being bumfuzzled
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 05:37:54 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
snippage
Both machines have now been rebooted, it seems you can't reboot just
one end of an NFS link as the un-rebooted end of it will lock solid,
needs a reset button push to
On 01/31/2012 05:42 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 05:37:54 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
snippage
Both machines have now been rebooted, it seems you can't reboot just
one end of an NFS link as the un-rebooted end of
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 06:04:57 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 05:42 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 05:37:54 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
snippage
Both machines have now been rebooted, it seems you can't
On 01/31/2012 06:09 AM, gene heskett wrote:
Bear in mind Mark, that I now have it setup so each is both a client
and a server, so that I can copy stuff in both directions. No clue
if that is a no-no, but it works, until I reboot either one. Perhaps
some other option needs to be enabled in
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:00 AM, gene heskett wrote:
The crosspost didn't work apparently, came from the wrong email account I
suppose.
Anyway, the answer is 'taskset' see the manpage.
So I wrote a 3 line script to use taskset to launch emc AND pin it to the
2nd cpu core. Runs sweet
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 08:52:01 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 06:09 AM, gene heskett wrote:
Bear in mind Mark, that I now have it setup so each is both a client
and a server, so that I can copy stuff in both directions. No clue
if that is a no-no, but it works, until I
On 01/31/2012 09:02 AM, gene heskett wrote:
NFS can use up all the CPU cycles trying to get a remount. I've seen
that quite a few times, especially at boot time, when a system is trying
to do an NFS mount on another system that's down at the time, and it
just sits there forever until the
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:02:45 AM Tom Easterday did opine:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:00 AM, gene heskett wrote:
The crosspost didn't work apparently, came from the wrong email
account I suppose.
Anyway, the answer is 'taskset' see the manpage.
So I wrote a 3 line script to use
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:37:52 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 09:02 AM, gene heskett wrote:
NFS can use up all the CPU cycles trying to get a remount. I've seen
that quite a few times, especially at boot time, when a system is
trying to do an NFS mount on another system
On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:37:52 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 09:02 AM, gene heskett wrote:
NFS can use up all the CPU cycles trying to get a remount. I've seen
that quite a few times, especially at boot time, when a
On 31 January 2012 16:36, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
In grub, if the rtai kernel line has isolcpus=1 appended, which takes
cpu1 out of the scheduler, then after the boot in completed, everything is
running on cpu0.
Then, using taskset, put emc/linuxcnc to running on the now
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 23:35 -0500, gene heskett wrote:
htop shows 2 cpu's with the 2nd one sitting at 0.0% use.
As I understand it, that's the way it should be.
The point of isolating the second CPU / core / whatever is to dedicate
it to the real-time parts of RTAI, thus reducing interrupt
On 1/31/2012 10:02 AM, Ed Nisley wrote:
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 23:35 -0500, gene heskett wrote:
htop shows 2 cpu's with the 2nd one sitting at 0.0% use.
As I understand it, that's the way it should be.
The point of isolating the second CPU / core / whatever is to dedicate
it to the real-time
On 1/31/2012 10:37 AM, Kent A. Reed wrote:
It may well be that this placement of some non-realtime activity on cpu1
fulfills the function of the cpu hog that is described in the RealTime
entry.
On second thought, strike this. I was driving beyond my headlights.
Regards,
Kent
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:53:43 AM andy pugh did opine:
On 31 January 2012 16:36, gene heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
In grub, if the rtai kernel line has isolcpus=1 appended, which
takes cpu1 out of the scheduler, then after the boot in completed,
everything is running on cpu0.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:49:24 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:37:52 AM Mark Wendt did opine:
On 01/31/2012 09:02 AM, gene heskett wrote:
NFS can use up all the CPU cycles trying to get a remount. I've
seen that
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:51:56 AM Ed Nisley did opine:
Hi Ed;
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 23:35 -0500, gene heskett wrote:
htop shows 2 cpu's with the 2nd one sitting at 0.0% use.
As I understand it, that's the way it should be.
The point of isolating the second CPU / core / whatever
On 1/31/2012 11:10 AM, gene heskett wrote:
What I think I've been saying is that we didn't know how it was working,
Well, yeah, and I'm not sure we know now either.
Just out of curiosity, how is your performance affected if you run the
old-fashioned way, e.g., without isolating a cpu?
Regards,
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:48:40 AM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/31/2012 11:10 AM, gene heskett wrote:
What I think I've been saying is that we didn't know how it was
working,
Well, yeah, and I'm not sure we know now either.
Just out of curiosity, how is your performance affected
I'm backtracking a bit
On 1/31/2012 10:49 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:53:43 AM andy pugh did opine:
On 31 January 2012 16:36, gene heskettghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
In grub, if the rtai kernel line has isolcpus=1 appended, which
takes cpu1 out of the
On 01/31/2012 08:10 AM, gene heskett wrote:
What I think I've been saying is that we didn't know how it was working,
everyone was convinced we would not see rtai activity in a cpu load report
because they weren't seeing any, and that by forcing the issue to match our
thoughts, a relatively
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 07:22:16 PM Kent A. Reed did opine:
I'm backtracking a bit
On 1/31/2012 10:49 AM, gene heskett wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 09:53:43 AM andy pugh did opine:
On 31 January 2012 16:36, gene heskettghesk...@wdtv.com wrote:
In grub, if the rtai
On 1/30/2012 8:36 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
Just in the last day it has come to my attention that both emc-2.6.0-pre
(latest emc from buildbot, master-rt branch) and the slightly newer renamed
linuxcnc-2.6.0-pre (latest from buildbot) are both running exclusively on
cpu0, and
On Monday, January 30, 2012 10:57:23 PM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/30/2012 8:36 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
Just in the last day it has come to my attention that both
emc-2.6.0-pre (latest emc from buildbot, master-rt branch) and the
slightly newer renamed
On 1/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2012 10:57:23 PM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/30/2012 8:36 PM, gene heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
Just in the last day it has come to my attention that both
emc-2.6.0-pre (latest emc from buildbot, master-rt branch) and the
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 01:33:48 AM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
So at the moment, I'm back to being bumfuzzled again. No clue what I
changed that would have screwed up the older emc-2.6.0-pre after its
been reinstalled.
Me neither. The only
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 01:49:57 AM gene heskett did opine:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 01:33:48 AM Kent A. Reed did opine:
On 1/30/2012 11:35 PM, gene heskett wrote:
So at the moment, I'm back to being bumfuzzled again. No clue what
I changed that would have screwed up the older
32 matches
Mail list logo
