From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Arun Srinivas <getarunsri@hotmail.com>
Cc: juhl-lkml@dif.dk, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: scheduler/SCHED_FIFO behaviour
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:17:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1112656624.5147.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BAY10-F37D1DA55DA1E869AA5A34DD93B0@phx.gbl>
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 04:36 +0530, Arun Srinivas wrote:
> I am scheduling 2 SCHED_FIFO processes and set them affinity( process A runs
> on processor 1 and process B runs on processor 2), on a HT processor.(I did
> this cause I wanted to run them together).Now, in schedule() I measure the
> timedifference between when they are scheduled. I found that when I
> introduce these 2 processes as SCHED_FIFO they are
>
> 1)scheduled only once and run till completion ( they running time is around
> 2 mins.)
If they are the highest priority task, and running as FIFO this is the
proper behavior.
> 2)entire system appears frozen....no mouse/key presses detected until the
> processes exit.
>
If X is not at a higher priority than the test you are running, it will
never get a chance to run.
> >From what I observed does it mean that even the OS / interrupt handler does
> not occur during the entire period of time these real time processes run??
> (as I said the processes run in minutes).
The interrupts do get processed. Now the bottom halves and tasklets may
be starved if they are set at a lower priority than your test (ie. the
ksoftirqd thread). But most likely they are processed too.
> How can I verify that?
>
#!/bin/sh
cat /proc/interrupts
run_test
cat /proc/interrupts
If the run_test takes 2 minutes, you should see a large difference in
the two outputs.
-- Steve
> Thanks
> Arun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-04 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bpH71yEXU00000397@hotmail.com>
2005-04-03 0:37 ` sched /HT processor Arun Srinivas
2005-04-03 1:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-04-03 2:16 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-04-03 4:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-04-03 7:52 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-04-03 11:17 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-04-03 15:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-04-03 22:52 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-04-03 23:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-04-04 23:06 ` scheduler/SCHED_FIFO behaviour Arun Srinivas
2005-04-04 23:17 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2005-04-05 2:16 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-04-05 3:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-04-03 22:52 ` sched /HT processor Arun Srinivas
2005-04-07 1:41 scheduler/SCHED_FIFO behaviour Arun Srinivas
2005-04-07 2:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-05-01 2:06 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-05-01 15:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-05-02 5:27 ` Arun Srinivas
2005-05-02 10:37 ` Florian Schmidt
2005-05-02 16:33 ` Steven Rostedt
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=1112656624.5147.34.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=getarunsri@hotmail.com \
--cc=juhl-lkml@dif.dk \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox