lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling
From
Date
On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Cal <hihone@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
> > There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at
> > <http://www.graggrag.com/ck-tests/ck-tests-0501182249.txt>
> >
> > Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run
> > twice. The discrepancies between consecutive runs (with same
> > parameters) is puzzling. Also recorded were tests with SCHED_FIFO and
> > SCHED_RR.
>
> It's probably suffering from some of the same problems of thread
> granularity we saw running nice --20. It looks like you used
> schedtool to start jackd. IIUC, that will cause all jackd processes
> to run in the specified scheduling class. JACK is carefully written
> not to do that. Did you also use schedtool to start all the clients?
>
> I think your puzzling discrepancies are probably due to interference
> from non-realtime JACK threads running at elevated priority.

Isn't this going to be a showstopper? If I understand the scheduler
correctly, a nice -20 task is not guaranteed to preempt a nice -19 task,
if the scheduler decides that one is more CPU bound than the other and
lowers its dynamic priority. The design of JACK, however, requires the
higher priority threads to *always* preempt the lower ones.

Lee

-
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    [W:0.660 / U:0.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site