From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 21 07:47:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E031065678 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:47:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (qb-out-0506.google.com [72.14.204.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DC78FC1A for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:47:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@jroberson.net) Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id e34so1359499qbe.35 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.182.15 with SMTP id e15mr1100382waf.186.1219304875440; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.199? ( [24.94.72.120]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j34sm375106waf.48.2008.08.21.00.47.52 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:47:01 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: Andrew Reilly In-Reply-To: <20080819134005.GA85664@duncan.reilly.home> Message-ID: <20080820214627.C30593@desktop> References: <20080819025019.GA27997@duncan.reilly.home> <20080818215813.H952@desktop> <20080819134005.GA85664@duncan.reilly.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:47:57 -0000 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? Jeff > > Cheers, > > Andrew >