Message-ID: <1352032908.8944.34.camel@maggy.simpson.net>
Subject: Re: Scheduler queues for less os-jitter?
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Uwaysi Bin Kareem <uwaysi.bin.kareem@paradoxuncreated.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 05:41:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <op.wm8r8fjw6426ze@localhost.localdomain>
References: <op.wly58nr56426ze@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1349923594.6989.19.camel@marge.simpson.net>
	 <op.wm75y11n6426ze@localhost.localdomain>
	 <op.wm8r8fjw6426ze@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 986
Lines: 21

On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 10:20 +0100, Uwaysi Bin Kareem wrote: 
> Ok, anyway realtime processes did not work quite as expected.  
> ("overloaded" machine, even though cpu-time is only 10%). So I guess I  
> have to enable cgroups and live with the overhead then.
> 
> If I set cpu-limits there, does that involve an absolute value, or is it  
> normalized, so that even if I do 0.001% cpu for processes, they get all  
> cpu, when there is nothing running?

See Documentation/cgroups.  Between cgroups, cpusets, scheduler classes
and priorities, you have heaping truckloads of control over what runs
where and when.  The missing element in your low jitter quest is a
desktop and applications that were written for realtime performance.

-Mike

--
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/