From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR broken by cfs
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:53:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1218898413.10800.252.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1218880552.11912.9.camel@matrix>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-16 14:53 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 [this message]
2008-08-16 16:26 ` Stefani Seibold
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=1218898413.10800.252.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=stefani@seibold.net \
/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