Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

Lee Revell
2005-01-05T15:41:34Z

On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 12:52 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the RT-LSM thing is a bit dangerous because it doesnt really protect
> against a runaway, buggy app. So i think the right way to approach this
> problem is to not apply RT-LSM for the time being, but to provide an
> 'advanced latency needs' scheduling class that is _still_ safe even if
> the task is runaway, but behaves with near-RT priorities if the task is
> 'nice' (i.e. doesnt use up large amount of CPU time.)
>
> incidentally, there is such a scheduling class already: negative nice
> levels. Please skip any preconceptions you might have about nice levels,
> nice levels have been improved in 2.6.10, the timeslices are now given
> out exponentially, giving nice -20 tasks far more weight and priority
> than they used to have. (They are obviously still preemptable if they
> keep looping burning CPU - but that we can consider a feature.) (Also,
> in 2.6 the negative nice levels have a much more agressive interactivity
> setting, allowing them to preempt everything lower-prio.)
>
> so, could you try vanilla 2.6.10 (without LSM and without jackd running
> with RT priorities), with jackd set to nice -20? Make sure the
> jack-client process gets this priority too. Best to achieve this is to
> renice a shell to -20 and start up everything from there - the nice
> settings will be inherited. How does such an audio test compare to a
> test done with jackd running at SCHED_FIFO with RT priority 1?
>
> if this works out well then we could achieve something comparable to
> RT-LSM, via nice levels alone.

Ugh, screwed up the cc: list. Sorry for the WOB.

Paul, care to comment on the above?

Lee