lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

* Jack O'Quin <joq@io.com> wrote:

> The numbers I reported yesterday were so bad I couldn't figure out why
> anyone even thought it was worth trying. Now I realize why.
>
> When Ingo said to try "nice -20", I took him literally, forgetting
> that the stupid command to achieve a nice value of -20 is `nice --20'.
> So I was actually testing with a nice value of 19. Bah! No wonder it
> sucked.
>
> Running `nice --20' is still significantly worse than SCHED_FIFO, but
> not the unmitigated disaster shown in the middle column. But, this
> improved performance is still not adequate for audio work. The worst
> delay was absurdly long (~1/2 sec).
>
> Here are the corrected results...
>
> With -R Without -R Without -R
> (SCHED_FIFO) (nice -20) (nice --20)
>
> ************* SUMMARY RESULT ****************
> Total seconds ran . . . . . . : 300
> Number of clients . . . . . . : 20
> Ports per client . . . . . . : 4
> Frames per buffer . . . . . . : 64
> *********************************************
> Timeout Count . . . . . . . . :( 1) ( 1) ( 1)
> XRUN Count . . . . . . . . . : 2 2837 43
> Delay Count (>spare time) . . : 0 0 0
> Delay Count (>1000 usecs) . . : 0 0 0
> Delay Maximum . . . . . . . . : 3130 usecs 5038044 usecs 501374 usecs
> Cycle Maximum . . . . . . . . : 960 usecs 18802 usecs 1036 usecs
> Average DSP Load. . . . . . . : 34.3 % 44.1 % 34.3 %

what kind of non-audio workload was there during this test? 43 xruns
arent nice but arent that bad either.

plus, is it 100% sure that all audio threads inherited the nice --20
priority - including the client threads? Nornally jackd does a
setscheduler for the client threads so that they get boosted to
SCHED_FIFO, but there is no parallel to that in the nice --20 case, did
you do that manually (or did you start the clients up from the nice --20
shell too?))

If the nice --20 priority setup is perfect and there are still xruns
then could you try the following hack, change this line in
kernel/sched.c:

#define STARVATION_LIMIT (MAX_SLEEP_AVG)

to:

#define STARVATION_LIMIT 0

this will turn off starvation checking, for testing purposes. (to see
whether there's anything else but anti-starvation causing xruns.)

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans