Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:39:18 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Realtime thread priorities Message-ID: <20101211213918.GB21959@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <201012101050.45214.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201012101050.45214.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2010-Dec-10 10:50:45 -0500, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >The problem I am running into is that when a time-sharing thread goes to s= leep=20 >in the kernel (waiting on select, socket data, tty, etc.) it actually ends= up=20 >in the kernel priorities range (64 - 127). This means when it wakes up it= =20 >will trump (and preempt) a real-time user thread even though these process= es=20 >nominally have a priority down in the 160 - 223 range. We do drop the ker= nel=20 >sleep priority during userret(), but we don't recheck the scheduler queues= to=20 >see if we should preempt the thread during userret(), so it effectively ru= ns=20 >with the kernel sleep priority for the rest of the quantum while it is in= =20 >userland. This may also explain the situation I'm seeing where idprio processes are receiving more than "idle" time (see "idprio processes slowing down system" in -hackers). >My first question is if this behavior is the desired behavior? Originally= I=20 >think I preferred the current layout because I thought a thread in the ker= nel=20 >should always have priority so it can release locks, etc. I suspect it was intended as a solution to priority inversion issues. >1) (easy) just move the real-time priority range above the kernel sleep=20 >priority range This won't affect the associated issue of idprio processes "preempting" timesharing processes. >2) (harder) make sched_userret() check the run queue to see if it should= =20 >preempt when dropping the kernel sleep priority. IMHO, this is the "correct" solution but that needs to be tempered by the additional overhead this might incur. --=20 Peter Jeremy --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk0D74YACgkQ/opHv/APuIcROACeNr2ajW+rBdeMeZ+kVJAJoftB xtMAnAv9ZBzEYKvf/r67onBgf/dNZhGl =6FHd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101211213918.GB21959>