Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> OK, I reran with just 5 processes reniced from -10 to -5. On my >> system they were: events, khelper, kblockd, aio and reiserfs. In >> addition, I reniced loop0 from -20 to -5. > >> One major problem: this `nice --20' hack affects every thread, not >> just the critical realtime ones. That's not what we want. Audio >> applications make very conscious choices which threads run with high >> priority and which do not. > > how much did this problem affect your test? Could the source of the 500 > msec delays be the non-highprio components of the test that somehow > became nice --20?
Some interference is definitely possible. But, the test does not involve any graphical interface, so I'd expect that to be small. Looking at jack_test3_client.cpp, the main thread just does a sleep() while the process cycle is running. Still, it's hard to be sure. Probably, the best way to tell would be patching JACK so it uses nice(-20) instead of pthread_setschedparam() for the realtime threads. As a hack, that looks easy. I'll build a working directory with just that change, so we can experiment with it better. -- joq - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
