Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 12:18:52 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheduler question Message-ID: <iignas$kbc$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <53A394ED-7C2E-4E4B-A9A7-CB5F1B27DBE3@gsoft.com.au> References: <53A394ED-7C2E-4E4B-A9A7-CB5F1B27DBE3@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/02/2011 03:56, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > I hooked up a logic analyser and I can see most of the time it's fairly regularly transferring 16k of data every 2msec. > > If I load up the disk by, eg, tar -cf /dev/null /local0 I find it drops out and I can see gaps in the transfers until eventually the FIFO fills up and it stops. > > I am wondering if this is a scheduler problem (or I am expecting too much :) in that it is not running my libusb thread reliably under load. The other possibility is that it is a USB issue, although I am looking at using isochronous transfers instead of bulk. I'm surprised this isn't complained about more often - I also regularly see that file system activity blocks other, non-file-using processes which are mostly CPU and memory intensive (but since I'm not running realtime things, it fell under the "good enough" category). Maybe there is kind of global-ish lock of some kind which the VM or the VFS hold which would interfere with normal operation of other processes (maybe when the processes use malloc() to grow their memory?). Could you try 2 things: 1) instead of doing file IO, could you directly use a disk device (e.g. /dev/ad0), possibly with some more intensive utility than dd (e.g. "diskinfo -vt") and see if there is any difference? 2) if there is a difference in 1), try modifying your program to not use malloc() in the critical path (if applicable) and/or use mlock(2)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?iignas$kbc$1>