From owner-freebsd-multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 28 10:37:13 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 E5C61106568A; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:37:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) Received: from mout3.freenet.de (mout3.freenet.de [IPv6:2001:748:100:40::2:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4CA8FC18; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:37:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) Received: from [195.4.92.18] (helo=8.mx.freenet.de) by mout3.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #19) id 1KYesI-0000en-M0; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:37:10 +0200 Received: from m84fa.m.pppool.de ([89.49.132.250]:49195 helo=peedub.jennejohn.org) by 8.mx.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID gary.jennejohn@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #12) id 1KYesI-0005K0-Db; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:37:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:37:08 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn To: Andrew Reilly Message-ID: <20080828123708.45964271@peedub.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <20080827233831.GA16705@duncan.reilly.home> References: <20080819025019.GA27997@duncan.reilly.home> <20080818215813.H952@desktop> <20080819134005.GA85664@duncan.reilly.home> <20080820214627.C30593@desktop> <20080827233831.GA16705@duncan.reilly.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson , 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 Reply-To: gary.jennejohn@freenet.de List-Id: Multimedia discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:37:14 -0000 On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:31 +1000 Andrew Reilly wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:47:01PM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Andrew Reilly wrote: > > >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? > > I've just done a set of tests with setprio(... -20) vs > rtprio(...10), and with SCHED_ULE vs SCHED_4BSD. The results > are essentially as I reported before except that regular prio > -20 seems to be just as reliable as rtprio 10 under 4BSD and > just as unhelpful under _ULE. > > To summarise: > > SCHED_ULE: rtprio 10: network activity causes audio underruns > SCHED_ULE: setprio -20: network activity causes audio underruns > SCHED_4BSD: rtprio 10: no audio underruns > SCHED_4BSD: setprio -20: no audio underruns > > For what it's worth, my audio buffering setup has a fragment > size of 0.7ms, but several buffers. How is device driver > activity prioritized? Does the scheduler in use effect how > device interrupts are handled, as well as user-land tasks? > > I have kernels built with both schedulers sitting arround on > this machine now, so it's easy to switch back and forth if there > are some specific tests that I could do or other information > that I could provide. > Ah yes, but do you have options PREEMPTION set, which was Jeff's question? --- Gary Jennejohn