From owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 26 00:00:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04770106566C for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com (nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com [61.9.168.149]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750E78FC18 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com ([124.188.162.219]) by nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20080826000034.NYAH19244.nskntmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com@nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com> for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:34 +0000 Received: from areilly.bpa.nu ([124.188.162.219]) by nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20080826000033.FUDH15766.nskntotgx02p.mx.bigpond.com@areilly.bpa.nu> for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 77808 invoked by uid 501); 26 Aug 2008 00:00:09 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:00:09 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly To: Jeff Roberson Message-ID: <20080826000009.GA77044@duncan.reilly.home> References: <20080819025019.GA27997@duncan.reilly.home> <20080818215813.H952@desktop> <20080819134005.GA85664@duncan.reilly.home> <20080820214627.C30593@desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080820214627.C30593@desktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A150205.48B347A2.00B4,ss=1,fgs=0 Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCHED_ULE problem: slow single processor, realtime prio vs network stack X-BeenThere: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multimedia discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:44 -0000 Hi Jeff, Sorry for the slow follow-up. It's actually quite a pain to tweak the kernel on that machine: it's often in use and it's slow at compiling kernels. Will see if I can get on to it soon. On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:47:01PM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Andrew Reilly wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:00:12PM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >>Can you tell me what % cpu the audio application uses while running? Have > >>you tried nice -20 instead of rtprio? > > > >It's currently using about 10%, maybe a bit more. I expect > >it to get heavier as I add more to it. I have hopes of it > >continuing to work even at 60 to 80% of CPU. > > > >I haven't tried nice -20 because I don't want the priority to > >drift or change, which is something that I thought the normal > >levels did. I'll give it a go though, and report back. > > With such a low cpu utilization I wouldn't expect it's the scheduling > algorithm. It may be a difference in preemption settings. Is preemption > enabled in both kernels? Yes, all of the premption and POSIX realtime options (that are usually on, aren't they?) are on in each case. Only difference is selection of scheduler: (This is the whole config file) include GENERIC ident GURNEY nocpu I486_CPU nocpu I586_CPU nooptions SCHED_ULE options SCHED_4BSD Cheers, Andrew