Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261444AbVASCCI (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261544AbVASCCI (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:08 -0500 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:49320 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261444AbVASCCD (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:03 -0500 Subject: Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling From: Lee Revell To: "Jack O'Quin" Cc: hihone@bigpond.net.au, Con Kolivas , linux , CK Kernel , paul@linuxaudiosystems.com In-Reply-To: <87d5w2u2xd.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> References: <41ED08AB.5060308@kolivas.org> <41ED2F1F.1080905@bigpond.net.au> <87d5w2u2xd.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:01 -0500 Message-Id: <1106100122.30792.23.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1536 Lines: 33 On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > Cal writes: > > > There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at > > > > > > 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/