From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755735Ab0EQUxN (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 16:53:13 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:40802 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751434Ab0EQUxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 16:53:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4BF1AC51.7080108@nortel.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:51:29 -0600 From: "Chris Friesen" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xianghua Xiao CC: Con Kolivas , Suresh Rajashekara , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Issue with SCHED_FIFO app References: <201005131249.56432.kernel@kolivas.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2010 20:53:07.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3E04850:01CAF602] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/12/2010 09:16 PM, Xianghua Xiao wrote: > I'm unsure if the newest "top" (or /proc/PID/stat) reports the correct > cpu usage when CFS/BFS is used, as you mentioned it seems failed to do > that. I will try to stress the system and see who fails first under > same workload, maybe that's the only way to compare cpu usage between > 2.6.18rt vs 2.6.33rt, for now. If you turn on scheduler debugging, then /proc/sched_debug gives accurate information using the scheduler clock (at least with CFS, not sure about BFS). Chris