Re: [RFC] Scheduler issue 1, RT tasks ...

Victor Yodaiken
2001-12-24T00:25:14Z

Run a "RT" task that is scheduled every millisecond (or time of your
choice)
while(1`){
read cycle timer
clock_nanosleep(time period using aabsolute time
read cycle timer - what was actual delay? track worst
case
}

Run this
a) on aaaaaaaaan unstressed system
b) under stress
c) while a timed non-rt benchmark runs to figure out "RT"
overhead.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 09:00:15AM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:57:55PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On 21 Dec 2001, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to second that, IMHO the RT task scheduling should trade
> > > throughput for latency, and if someone wants priority inversion, let
> > > him explicitly request it.
> >
> > No a great performance loss anyway. It's zero performance loss if the CPU
> > that has ran the woke up RT task for the last time is not running another
> > RT task ( very probable ). If the last CPU of the woke up task is running
> > another RT task a CPU discovery loop ( like the current scheduler ) must
> > be triggered. Not a great deal anyway.
>
> Some time back, I asked if anyone had any RT benchmarks and got
> little response. Performance (latency) degradation for RT tasks
> while implementing new schedulers was my concern. Does anyone
> have ideas about how we should measure/benchmark this? My
> 'solution' at the time was to take a scheduler heavy benchmark
> like reflex, and simply make all the tasks RT. This wasn't very
> 'real world', but at least it did allow me to compare scheduler
> overhead in the RT paths of various scheduler implementations.
>
> --
> Mike
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/