linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>
To: Zajac Adam-AAZ004 <Adam.Zajac@motorola.com>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: Help on tuning the Linux kernel for soft real-time requiremen ts
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:51:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041019015120.GA6252@gate.ebshome.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EFB813091B18D511BD3600508B644F820A6181E9@tx14exm06.ftw.mot.com>

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:44:52PM -0500, Zajac Adam-AAZ004 wrote:
> It sounds like you're doing exactly what we've been trying to achieve.
> We're trying to meet soft real-time deadlines that are in order of seconds
> (2sec).

Hmm, 2s is a lot. You shouldn't have any problems with getting 2 
second accuracy.

> The only differences between our systems are:
> - kernel 2.4.20
> - HZ = 100
> - Compact Flash

And O(1) scheduler + SCHED_FIFO instead of round-robin (I don't like 
this scheduling policy :), SCHED_FIFO is true priority based 
scheduling.

BTW, we have systems with CF card, writing to it doesn't seem to 
affect real-time threads either.

> We tried to do a similar thing to the scenario you described where we were
> running all other threads with SCHED_OTHER, and the thread with real-time
> priority with RoundRobin scheduler policy. We keep experiencing the greatest
> slips for such file system intensive operations like gzip and tar.
> Also, for an experiment, we tried to turn disk caching off, which helped
> meeting the deadlines a little but slowed down all file transfers
> unacceptably.
> To eliminate the question on the compact flash performance we tried using
> NFS. Using NFS  yielded similar results (missed deadlines) to performing the
> transfers with the cflash card.
> 
> Did you have to set anything special at your kernel config file (.config)?

Nothing special I can think of.

> Did you need to apply low-latency patch separately or the MV kernel you have
> came pre-patched?

I applied _all_ patches myself, although I used MV kernel as a 
reference in some cases, e.g. where rml PPC preempt patches were 
buggy.

--
Eugene

  reply	other threads:[~2004-10-19  1:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-10-18 22:44 Help on tuning the Linux kernel for soft real-time requiremen ts Zajac Adam-AAZ004
2004-10-19  1:51 ` Eugene Surovegin [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-21 21:55 Zajac Adam-AAZ004
2004-10-21 22:34 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-10-22 18:59 Zajac Adam-AAZ004
2004-10-22 19:10 ` Wolfgang Denk

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=20041019015120.GA6252@gate.ebshome.net \
    --to=ebs@ebshome.net \
    --cc=Adam.Zajac@motorola.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).