From: Billy Biggs <vektor@dumbterm.net>
To: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: tvtime and the Linux 2.6 scheduler
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:48:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040523154859.GC22399@dumbterm.net> (raw)
I am the author of tvtime, a TV application with advanced image
processing algorithms. Some users are complaining about poor
performance under Linux 2.6, and I would like more information about how
tvtime will be treated by the scheduler. Here is an example of the
intended usage:
- Program running as root and SCHED_FIFO
- NTSC, input ~30 fps, each field processed for an output of ~60 fps
- CPU intensive processing, say 9 ms per field on my P3-733
- with a typical AGP card, the X driver takes 4 ms to draw
- Wait using /dev/rtc set to 1024 Hz
for(;;)
9 ms : process frame
4 ms : draw frame
3 ms : wait until next field time using /dev/rtc
9 ms : process frame
4 ms : draw frame
3 ms : block on /dev/video0 for next frame
-----
33 ms : time per NTSC frame
The theory is that Linux classifies this as a CPU hog regardless of
its priority, and preempts tvtime with other processes. Oswald
Buddenhagen describes the effect as this:
"[...] it starts up fine, but after a few seconds (when the scheduler
gathered some stats) ... well, it looks funny: the scene goes roughly
exponentially into slow motion, then there is a frame drop and the
process starts over. this behaviour can be observed at any priority,
which is clearly against the claim "no normally priorized interactive
process will preempt a highly priorized cpu-hog" that i've read
somewhere. the xserver priority does not change anything, either;"
Avoiding root/SCHED_FIFO and using usleep() instead of /dev/rtc seems
to exhibit the same behavior.
Thoughts?
-Billy
next reply other threads:[~2004-05-23 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-23 15:48 Billy Biggs [this message]
2004-05-23 16:20 ` tvtime and the Linux 2.6 scheduler Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
2004-05-23 16:54 ` Con Kolivas
2004-05-23 17:20 ` Billy Biggs
2004-05-23 21:03 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-05-24 8:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 6:58 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 7:14 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-23 22:49 ` szonyi calin
2004-05-24 19:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-05-25 8:49 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-05-24 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 11:45 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-05-27 11:35 ` Redeeman
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=20040523154859.GC22399@dumbterm.net \
--to=vektor@dumbterm.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.