On 11/1/05, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 21:55 -0500, Carlos Antunes wrote:
>
> >
> > Fernando,
> >
> > I'm also having some when using SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. When running
> > several hundred threads, each sleeping on a loop for 20ms, SCHED_OTHER
> > performs ok with latencies of less than 10ms while with SCHED_FIFO or
> > SCHED_RR, I see latencies exceeding 1 full second!
>
> Are you saying that you have several hundred threads in SCHED_FIFO or
> SCHED_RR? Or is just Jack as that.
>
It's a simple program I put together to test wakeup latency. Each
thread basically sleeps for 20ms, wakes up and executes a couple of
instructions and goes back to sleep for another 20ms. Multiply this by
a thousand. What I found out is that, inthis situation, and using
realtime-preempt, SCHED_OTHER offers 3 orders of magnitude less
latency than SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR. Which suggests to me there is
something fishy going on.
Carlos
--
"We hold [...] that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed [...] with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
-- Thomas Jefferson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
