Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:58:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:57:58 -0400 Received: from paloma14.e0k.nbg-hannover.de ([62.159.219.14]:17407 "HELO paloma14.e0k.nbg-hannover.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:57:48 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Dieter =?iso-8859-1?q?N=FCtzel?= Organization: DN To: Andrea Arcangeli , Robert Love , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.4.10-ac10-preempt lmbench output. Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 05:57:46 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] Cc: Linux Kernel List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <20011010035748Z274557-760+23038@vger.kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:06, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:37:56PM -0400, Robert Love wrote: > > On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 22:30, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > As said it's very very unlikely that preemption points can fix xmms > > > skips anyways, the worst scheduler latency is always of the order of the > > > msecs, to generate skips you need a latency of seconds. [...] > The point is that to avoid dropouts dbench must take say 40% of the cpu > and xmms another 40% of the cpu. Then the 10msec doesn't matter. If each > one takes 50% of cpu exactly you can run in dropouts anyways because of > scheduler imprecisions. I get the dropouts (2~3 sec) after dbench 32 is running for 9~10 seconds. I've tried with RT artds and nice -20 mpg123. Kernel: 2.4.11-pre6 + 00_vm-1 + preempt Only solution: I have to copy the test MPG3 file into /dev/shm. CPU (1 GHz Athlon II) is ~75% idle during the hiccup. The dbench processes are mostly in wait_page/wait_cache if I remember right. So I think that you are right it is a file IO wait (latency) problem. Please hurry up with your read/write copy-user paths lowlatency patches ;-) > So again: the preemptive patch cannot make any difference, except for > the read/write copy-user paths that originally Ingo fixed ages ago in > 2.2, and that I also later fixed in all -aa 2.2 and 2.4 and that are > also fixed in the lowlatency patches from Andrew (but in the > generic_file_read/write rather than in copy-user, to possible avoid some > overhead for short copy users, but the end result for an xmms user is > exactly the same). Andrew have you a current version of your lowlatency patches handy? Robert you are running a dual PIII system, right? Could that be the ground why you aren't see the hiccup with your nice preempt patch? Are you running ReiserFS or EXT2/3? Thanks, Dieter - 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/