All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR broken by cfs
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:26:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1218903997.3665.6.camel@matrix> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1218898413.10800.252.camel@twins>

I haved tried your suggestion on my 2.6.26 pentium notebook. Nothing is
changing.

After applying 'echo -1> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us' the
SCHED_FIFO jitter are still higher than with SCHED_OTHER.

Here are the results of my notebook 

time chrt -f 99 /tmp/a.out      time chrt -o 0 /tmp/a.out
 average: 212                    average: 13
 min. jitter: 0 usec             min. jitter: 0 usec
 max. jitter: 50013 usec         max. jitter: 33 usec

The kernel was startet with init=/bin/bash, so no other process is
running.

Thanx for supporting me.

Am Samstag, den 16.08.2008, 16:53 +0200 schrieb Peter Zijlstra: 
> On Sat, 2008-08-16 at 11:55 +0200, Stefani Seibold wrote:
> > Hi kernel hackers,
> > 
> > it seems that the new completely fair scheduler breaks the SCHED_RR and
> > SCHED_FIFO realtime scheduler.
> > 
> > In my opinion a high priority real time user process with SCHED_FIFO
> > should be only interrupted by the kernel or a process with an higher
> > priority. So a user process running under SCHED_FIFO and priority 99
> > should never be interrupted by any other process.  This was true under
> > kernel 2.6.20. 
> > 
> > On my pentium/celeron III/400 MHz system with kernel 2.6.20 a busy loop
> > using the "time stamp counter" of the x86 cpu for delaying, this was
> > very accurate. The max. jitter of the delaying was about 5 microseconds.
> > 
> > With the new kernel 2.6.26 the jitter is about 51177 microseconds or in
> > other words 51 milliseconds or more the 10000 times greater than kernel
> > 2.6.20. This huge latency is far away from realtime.
> > 
> > Below are the results of the attached test program. Maybe somebody else
> > can confirm this results. All measurements was done with no other
> > process running, only the busybox 1.11.1 shell and the init process was
> > there.
> 
> Has nothing to do with CFS, but everything to do with the fact that we
> now have a 95% bandwidth control by default.
> 
> Does doing:
> 
> echo -1 > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_runtime_us
> 
> fix it?
> 
> So, up to 95% cpu usage (per sched_rt_period_us) FIFO and RR behave like
> they always did, once they cross that line, they'll be throttled.
> 
> 95% seemed like a sane default in that it leaves a little room to
> recover from a run-away rt process (esp handy now that !root users can
> also use RT scheduling classes), and should be enough for most
> applications as they usually don't consume all that much time.
> 
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2008-08-16 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-16  9:55 SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR broken by cfs Stefani Seibold
2008-08-16 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-16 16:26   ` Stefani Seibold [this message]
2008-08-16 21:29   ` Stefani Seibold
2008-08-17 22:15     ` Dario Faggioli
2008-08-18 10:47       ` [PATCH] sched: rt-bandwidth disable fixes Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-18 11:11         ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-17 13:04   ` SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR broken by cfs Nick Piggin
2008-08-18 10:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-18 10:58       ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-18 11:09         ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-18 11:24           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-18 11:51             ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-18 12:14               ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-18 18:01                 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-08-18 19:46                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-19  7:44                   ` Nick Piggin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1218903997.3665.6.camel@matrix \
    --to=stefani@seibold.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.