Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:37:08 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> To: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE problem: slow single processor, realtime prio vs network stack Message-ID: <20080828123708.45964271@peedub.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <20080827233831.GA16705@duncan.reilly.home> References: <20080819025019.GA27997@duncan.reilly.home> <20080818215813.H952@desktop> <20080819134005.GA85664@duncan.reilly.home> <20080820214627.C30593@desktop> <20080827233831.GA16705@duncan.reilly.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:31 +1000 Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:47:01PM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Andrew Reilly wrote: > > >I haven't tried nice -20 because I don't want the priority to > > >drift or change, which is something that I thought the normal > > >levels did. I'll give it a go though, and report back. > > > > With such a low cpu utilization I wouldn't expect it's the scheduling > > algorithm. It may be a difference in preemption settings. Is preemption > > enabled in both kernels? > > I've just done a set of tests with setprio(... -20) vs > rtprio(...10), and with SCHED_ULE vs SCHED_4BSD. The results > are essentially as I reported before except that regular prio > -20 seems to be just as reliable as rtprio 10 under 4BSD and > just as unhelpful under _ULE. > > To summarise: > > SCHED_ULE: rtprio 10: network activity causes audio underruns > SCHED_ULE: setprio -20: network activity causes audio underruns > SCHED_4BSD: rtprio 10: no audio underruns > SCHED_4BSD: setprio -20: no audio underruns > > For what it's worth, my audio buffering setup has a fragment > size of 0.7ms, but several buffers. How is device driver > activity prioritized? Does the scheduler in use effect how > device interrupts are handled, as well as user-land tasks? > > I have kernels built with both schedulers sitting arround on > this machine now, so it's easy to switch back and forth if there > are some specific tests that I could do or other information > that I could provide. > Ah yes, but do you have options PREEMPTION set, which was Jeff's question? --- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080828123708.45964271>