To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com>,
       Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
References: <20050113214320.GB22208@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<20050111214152.GA17943@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<200501112251.j0BMp9iZ006964@localhost.localdomain>
	<20050111150556.S10567@build.pdx.osdl.net>
	<87y8ezzake.fsf@sulphur.joq.us>
	<20050112074906.GB5735@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<87oefuma3c.fsf@sulphur.joq.us>
	<20050113072802.GB13195@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<878y6x9h2d.fsf@sulphur.joq.us>
	<20050113210750.GA22208@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<1105651508.3457.31.camel@krustophenia.net>
	<20050113214320.GB22208@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	<5.2.1.1.2.20050114171907.00c05e38@pop.gmx.net>
From: "Jack O'Quin" <joq@io.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:14:16 -0600
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20050114171907.00c05e38@pop.gmx.net> (Mike
 Galbraith's message of "Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:20:35 +0100")
Message-ID: <87llav7atz.fsf@sulphur.joq.us>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Corporate Culture,
 linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1025
Lines: 28

Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> writes:

> At 05:31 PM 1/13/2005 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>>Yes.  However, my tests have so far shown a need for "actual FIFO as
>>long as the task behaves itself."
>
> I for one wonder why that appears to be so.  What happens if you use
> SCHED_RR instead of SCHED_FIFO?
>
> (ie is the problem just one of running out of slice at a bad time, or
> is it the dynamic priority adjustment)

I have no quick and easy test for that.  

If it's important, I can modify a version of JACK to use SCHED_RR,
instead.

I very much doubt it would make any difference, since we normally only
run one realtime thread at a time.  Each client taps the next on the
shoulder when it is time for it to run, so there is essentially no
concurrency among them.
-- 
  joq
-
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/