From: Billy Biggs <vektor@dumbterm.net>
To: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: tvtime and the Linux 2.6 scheduler
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 10:48:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040523154859.GC22399@dumbterm.net> (raw)
I am the author of tvtime, a TV application with advanced image
processing algorithms. Some users are complaining about poor
performance under Linux 2.6, and I would like more information about how
tvtime will be treated by the scheduler. Here is an example of the
intended usage:
- Program running as root and SCHED_FIFO
- NTSC, input ~30 fps, each field processed for an output of ~60 fps
- CPU intensive processing, say 9 ms per field on my P3-733
- with a typical AGP card, the X driver takes 4 ms to draw
- Wait using /dev/rtc set to 1024 Hz
for(;;)
9 ms : process frame
4 ms : draw frame
3 ms : wait until next field time using /dev/rtc
9 ms : process frame
4 ms : draw frame
3 ms : block on /dev/video0 for next frame
-----
33 ms : time per NTSC frame
The theory is that Linux classifies this as a CPU hog regardless of
its priority, and preempts tvtime with other processes. Oswald
Buddenhagen describes the effect as this:
"[...] it starts up fine, but after a few seconds (when the scheduler
gathered some stats) ... well, it looks funny: the scene goes roughly
exponentially into slow motion, then there is a frame drop and the
process starts over. this behaviour can be observed at any priority,
which is clearly against the claim "no normally priorized interactive
process will preempt a highly priorized cpu-hog" that i've read
somewhere. the xserver priority does not change anything, either;"
Avoiding root/SCHED_FIFO and using usleep() instead of /dev/rtc seems
to exhibit the same behavior.
Thoughts?
-Billy
next reply other threads:[~2004-05-23 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-23 15:48 Billy Biggs [this message]
2004-05-23 16:20 ` tvtime and the Linux 2.6 scheduler Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
2004-05-23 16:54 ` Con Kolivas
2004-05-23 17:20 ` Billy Biggs
2004-05-23 21:03 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-05-24 8:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 6:58 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 7:14 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-23 22:49 ` szonyi calin
2004-05-24 19:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-05-25 8:49 ` Tobias Diedrich
2004-05-24 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 11:45 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2004-05-27 11:35 ` Redeeman
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=20040523154859.GC22399@dumbterm.net \
--to=vektor@dumbterm.net \
--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