On 26/11/20 7:04 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 25/11/2020 21:37, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>>> Maybe a configuration option for the RTEMS Tester should be added which
>>> allows
>>> you to set the performance hash and ignore the hash provided by the test
>>> output.
>>> This could be used to compar
On 25/11/2020 21:37, Chris Johns wrote:
Maybe a configuration option for the RTEMS Tester should be added which allows
you to set the performance hash and ignore the hash provided by the test output.
This could be used to compare a custom board with values obtain from an
evaluation board.
Why n
On 23/11/20 8:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 22/11/2020 22:45, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>>> My point is that we need a key reported by the BSP and then some
>>> performance
>>> limits which can be found by arch/bsp/key to check if there are
>>> performance
>>> regressions.
>>
On 22/11/2020 22:45, Chris Johns wrote:
My point is that we need a key reported by the BSP and then some performance
limits which can be found by arch/bsp/key to check if there are performance
regressions.
I am missing the place where the performance limits are held. Do the tests
report timing
On 21/11/20 3:43 am, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>>
>> On 19/11/20 7:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Hello Chris,
>>>
>>> On 17/11/2020 22:43, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>
On 17/11/20 6:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chri
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:51 PM Chris Johns wrote:
>
> On 19/11/20 7:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> > Hello Chris,
> >
> > On 17/11/2020 22:43, Chris Johns wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 17/11/20 6:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >>> On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Se
On 19/11/20 7:26 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> On 17/11/2020 22:43, Chris Johns wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17/11/20 6:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>
Hello Chris,
On 17/11/2020 22:43, Chris Johns wrote:
On 17/11/20 6:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
In the proposal, limits are specified like this:
limits:
sp
On 17/11/20 6:14 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
>>>
>>> In the proposal, limits are specified like this:
>>>
>>>
>>> limits:
>>> sparc/gr71
On 16/11/2020 23:42, Chris Johns wrote:
On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
In the proposal, limits are specified like this:
limits:
sparc/gr712rc:
DirtyCache:
max-upper-bound: 0.05
mean-upper-bound: 0.000
On 16/11/20 5:40 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
>
> In the proposal, limits are specified like this:
>
>
> limits:
> sparc/gr712rc:
> DirtyCache:
> max-upper-bound: 0.05
> mean-upper-bound: 0.
On 16/11/2020 00:33, Chris Johns wrote:
In the proposal, limits are specified like this:
limits:
sparc/gr712rc:
DirtyCache:
max-upper-bound: 0.05
mean-upper-bound: 0.05
FullCache:
max-upper-bound: 0.05
mean-upper-bound: 0.0
On 14/11/20 11:20 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 13/11/2020 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Sebastian Huber
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> there is one aspect with respect to performance limits which is
>>> currently not considered in this proposal:
>>>
>>> https:/
On 13/11/2020 20:01, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
Hello,
there is one aspect with respect to performance limits which is
currently not considered in this proposal:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063213.html
You can run th
I don't understand this proposal. Is this an approach used somewhere else where
I can review how this works? If not I need a clearer explanation.
> On Nov 13, 2020, at 14:01 , Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> there is one as
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> there is one aspect with respect to performance limits which is
> currently not considered in this proposal:
>
> https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063213.html
>
> You can run the some BSPs such as sparc/gr712
Hello,
there is one aspect with respect to performance limits which is
currently not considered in this proposal:
https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-November/063213.html
You can run the some BSPs such as sparc/gr712rc on several boards.
However, each board may have different settin
17 matches
Mail list logo
