lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Real-time scheduling policies and hyper-threading
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:16:52AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> 24.04.2014, 22:59, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>  Does anyone use rt-scheduler for runtime-like cpu-bound tasks?
> >
> > So in general cpu bound tasks in the RT classes (FIFO/RR/DEADLINE) are
> > bad and can make the system go funny.
> >
> > For general system health it is important that various system tasks
> > (kthreads usually) can run. Many of these kthreads run at !rt prios, and
> > by having cpu bound tasks in rt prios they don't get to run.
>
> One more word to this. I had such expirience on 2.6.33 kernel with RT patch
> and weak hardware (sparc32).
>
> Networking was actively used and application did not use any IO operations.
>
> User needs to set all RT priorities by himself. It's necessary to set RT
> priorities at least for softirqs and rcus. RT bandwidth must be switched
> off.
>
> The most giving optimization, which I receive, was after rejection from NAPI
> for network adapters and splitting interrupt handler on hard and threadparts.
> In this case game with binding for everything strongly improves the picture
> for single problem.

Sure, it can be made to work, but you really need to know what you're
doing and you get to keep all pieces when it comes apart :-)
--
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: 2014-04-24 23:01    [W:0.094 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site