Re: Interbench real time benchmark results

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:31 am, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 7/20/05, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 11:04 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:23 am, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2005-07-

Re: Interbench real time benchmark results

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:23 am, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 00:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - networking is another frequent source of latencies - it might make > >sense to add a workload doing lots of socket IO. (localhost might be > >enough, but not for everything) > >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.21

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:41 pm, Lee Revell wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:01 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > Interbech is a an application is designed to benchmark interactivity in > > Linux. > > > > Version 0.21 update > > > > http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/i

Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:25, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 09:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > I have to say, this whole thread has been pretty damn worthless in > > > general in my not-so-humble opinion. > > > > This thread has really g

[ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.21

Interbech is a an application is designed to benchmark interactivity in Linux. Version 0.21 update http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/interbench/interbench-0.21.tar.bz2 Changes: Changed the design to run the benchmarked and background loads as separate processes that spawn their own threads instead

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:46, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:31, David Lang wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > >> Con Kolivas wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, D

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:31, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> Con Kolivas wrote: > >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote: > >>>> for audio and video t

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:54, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote: > >>for audio and video this would seem to be a fairly simple scaleing factor > >>(or just doing a fixed amount of work rather then a fixed percentage o

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:34, Lee Revell wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 13:27 +0200, szonyi calin wrote: > > I have the following problem with audio: > > Xmms is running with threads for audio and spectrum > > analyzer(OpenGL). > > The audio eats 5% cpu, the spectrum analyzer about 80 %. The > > probl

Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:10, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > No, but 1/1000Hz = 100ns, while 1/864Hz = 1157407.407ns. If you have > > a counter that counts the ticks in nanoseconds (xtime ...), the first > > will be exact, the second will be accumulating an

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:55, Al Boldi wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Con Kolivas wrote: > > It runs a real time high priority timing thread that wakes up the thread > > Nice, but why is it threaded? Because I'm an amateur, and I had to start somewhere. > Forking would be mor

Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:57, Lee Revell wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 21:52 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > Well, it's just the default settings of the kernel which has changed. > > > If you want the old behaviour, you can use (with your admin hat): echo > > &g

Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:39, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > The PIT crystal runs at 14.3181818 MHz (CGA dotclock, found on ISA, ...) > > and is divided by 12 to get PIT tick rate > > > > 14.3181818 MHz / 12 = 1193182 Hz >

Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:10, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > The PIT crystal runs at 14.3181818 MHz (CGA dotclock, found on ISA, ...) > and is divided by 12 to get PIT tick rate > > 14.3181818 MHz / 12 = 1193182 Hz > > The reality is that the crystal is usually off by 50-100 ppm from the > standard val

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:17, David Lang wrote: > which brings up another possible config option/test case, changing the > read/write tests to try to do X MB/sec rather then the max possible speed > (probably defaulting to max if nothing is specified) That's a good idea. I was planning on adding a co

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:57, David Lang wrote: > this looks very interesting, however one thing that looks odd to me in > this is the thought of comparing the results for significantly different > hardware. > > for some of the loads you really are going to be independant of the speed > of the hardwar

Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ?

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:49, Eric Piel wrote: > 07/12/2005 01:11 PM, Ken Moffat wrote/a écrit: > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: > >> I was going to say that niceness didn't affect what I was doing, but > >>I've just rerun it [ in 2.6.11.9 ] and I see that tar and bzip2 show up > >>with a ni

[ANNOUNCE] Interbench v0.20 - Interactivity benchmark

and the results are reproducible. Adding more code to simulate loads and threads to benchmark is quite easy if someone wishes to suggest or code up something I'm all ears. Of course bugfixes, comments and suggestions are most welcome. Cheers, Con Kolivas pgp5azDei48nW.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: ondemand cpufreq ineffective in 2.6.12 ?

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:45, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Ken Moffat wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been using the ondemand governor on athlon64 winchesters for a few > > weeks. I've just noticed that in 2.6.12 the frequency is not > > increasing under load, it remains at the lowest freque

Re: 2.6.12-ck3

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 07:30 am, Rudo Thomas wrote: > Hi again. > > > Time seems to pass very fast with this kernel. > > dmesg output has not revealed anything extraordinary... > > Am I the only one who gets this strange behaviour? Kernel's notion of > time seems to be about 30 times faster than real t

Re: rt-preempt build failure

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:49, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > thanks, i have fixed this and have uploaded the -51-00 patch. > > > > Thanks. boots and runs stable after a swag of these initially > > (?netconsole related): > o

Re: rt-preempt build failure

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:51, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ingo > > > > This config on i386: > > http://ck.kolivas.org/crap/rt-config > > > > realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-51 > > fails to build with t

rt-preempt build failure

Hi Ingo This config on i386: http://ck.kolivas.org/crap/rt-config realtime-preempt-2.6.12-final-V0.7.50-51 fails to build with these errors: kernel/rt.c: In function `__down_mutex': kernel/rt.c:1264: error: `ti' undeclared (first use in this function) kernel/rt.c:1264: error: (Each undeclared id

Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.1 for 2.6.11 and 2.6.12

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:25, Peter Williams wrote: > Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:46, Peter Williams wrote: > >>Peter Williams wrote: > >>>Con Kolivas wrote: > >>>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:33, Peter Williams wrote: > >>>>>Pl

Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-5.2.1 for 2.6.11 and 2.6.12

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:46, Peter Williams wrote: > Peter Williams wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:33, Peter Williams wrote: > >>> PlugSched-5.2.1 is available for 2.6.11 and 2.6.12 kernels. This > >>> version applies Con Kolivas&

[Patch] Staircase cpu scheduler v11

The staircase single priority array foreground/background cpu scheduler has been updated to version 11. Numerous minor behavioural issues have been abolished with a much cleaner simple mathematical priority elevation/dropping mechanism and virtually no "interactivity estimation" algorithms exis

2.6.11-ck4

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. Apply to 2.6.11: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.11/2.6.11-ck4/patch-2.6.11-ck4.b

2.6.11-ck2

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.11/2.6.11-ck2/patch-2.6.11-ck2.bz2 web: http://k

2.6.11-ck1

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.11/2.6.11-ck1/patch-2.6.11-ck1.bz2 web: http://k

2.6.10-ck7

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. This is a maintenance release and is identical to 2.6.10-ck6 apart from using 2.6.10-a

2.6.10-ck6

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. This is a maintenance release and is identical to 2.6.10-ck5 apart from using 2.6.10-a

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [ Cc:s trimmed, added abiss-general ] Con Kolivas wrote: Possibly reiserfs journal related. That has larger non-preemptible code sections. If I understand your workload right, it should consist mainly of computation,

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

Paul Davis wrote: * real inter-process handoff. i am thinking of something like sched_yield(), but it would take a TID as the target of the yield. this would avoid all the crap we have to go through to drive the graph of clients with FIFO's and write(2) and poll(2). Futexes mi

Re: Linux hangs during IDE initialization at boot for 30 sec

Richard Hughes wrote: Benjamin Herrenschmidt kernel.crashing.org> writes: This looks like bogus HW, or bogus list of IDE interfaces ... How can I test to see if this is the case? The IDE layer waits up to 30 seconds for a device to drop it's busy bit, which is necessary for some drives that aren

Re: [PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Good work. Looks like you're probably right about the accounting. It may be as simple as the fact that it is on the timer tick that we're getting rescheduled and this ends up being accounted as more since the accou

Re: [PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

Jack O'Quin wrote: The fact that the results did improve with the 90% setting suggests that there may be a bug in your throttling or time accounting. The DSP load for this test should hover around 50% when things are working properly. It should never hit a 70% limit, not even momentarily. The ba

Re: [PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sure enough I found the bug in less than 5 mins, and it would definitely cause this terrible behaviour. A silly bracket transposition error on my part :P The corrected version works noticeably better, but still nowhere near

Re: [PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

Jack O'Quin wrote: Loading the realtime-lsm and then running with SCHED_FIFO *does* work as expected on this kernel. I should retry the test with *exactly* the expected patch sequence. What would that be? Sure enough I found the bug in less than 5 mins, and it would definitely cause this terribl

Re: [PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: While it is not clear what form the final soft real time implementation is, we should complete the partial implementation of SCHED_ISO that is in 2.6.11-rc2-mm1. I finally had a chance to try this today. I applied a slightl

[PATCH] sched - Implement priority and fifo support for SCHED_ISO

39 SCHED_NORMAL -100 -> -1 Isochronous -200 -> -101 Real time Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.11-rc2-mm1/include/linux/sched.h === --- linux-2.6.11-rc2-mm1.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: There were numerous bugs in the SCHED_ISO design prior to now, so it really was not performing as expected. What is most interesting is that the DSP load goes to much higher levels now if xruns are avoided and stay at those high levels. If I push the cpu load too much so that

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature

Ingo Molnar wrote: pretty much the only criticism of the RT-CPU patch was that the global sysctl is too rigid and that it doesnt allow privileged tasks to ignore the limit. I've uploaded a new RT-CPU-limit patch that solves this problem: http://redhat.com/~mingo/rt-limit-patches/ i've removed the

2.6.11-rc2-mm1: freeing b_committed_data

Getting a few of these: __journal_remove_journal_head: freeing b_committed_data in my dmesg with this kernel. It's ext3 on a P-ATA drive. Bad? Dangerous? harmless debugging stuff? Con signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

There were numerous bugs in the SCHED_ISO design prior to now, so it really was not performing as expected. What is most interesting is that the DSP load goes to much higher levels now if xruns are avoided and stay at those high levels. If I push the cpu load too much so that they get transient

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: -cc list trimmed to those who have recently responded. Here is a patch to go on top of 2.6.11-rc2-mm1 that fixes some bugs in the general SCHED_ISO code, fixes the priority support between ISO threads, and implements SCHED_ISO_RR and SCHED_ISO_FIFO as separate policies. Note

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

-cc list trimmed to those who have recently responded. Here is a patch to go on top of 2.6.11-rc2-mm1 that fixes some bugs in the general SCHED_ISO code, fixes the priority support between ISO threads, and implements SCHED_ISO_RR and SCHED_ISO_FIFO as separate policies. Note the bugfixes and cle

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: I still wonder if some coding error might occasionally be letting a lower priority process continue running after an interrupt when it ought to be preempted. Well not surprisingly I did find a bug in my patch which did not honour priority support between ISO threads. So basicall

Re: [ck] Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: /proc/sys/kernel/rt_cpu_limit tunable

Con Kolivas wrote: Ingo Molnar wrote: * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] "how do we give low latencies to audio applications (and other, soft-RT alike applications), while not allowing them to lock up the system." ok, here is another approach, against 2.6.10/11-ish

Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: /proc/sys/kernel/rt_cpu_limit tunable

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] "how do we give low latencies to audio applications (and other, soft-RT alike applications), while not allowing them to lock up the system." ok, here is another approach, against 2.6.10/11-ish kernels: http://redhat.com/~mingo/rt

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: I'll try building a SCHED_RR version of JACK. I still don't think it will make any difference. But my intuition isn't working very well right now, so I need more data. Could be that despite what it appears, FIFO behaviour may be desirable to RR. Also the RR in SCHED_ISO is pre

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There are two things that the SCHED_ISO you tried is not that SCHED_FIFO is - As you mentioned there is no priority support, and it is RR, not FIFO. I am not sure whether it is one and or the other responsible. Both can

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Looked at this way, there really is no question. The new scheduler prototypes are falling short significantly. Could this be due to their lack of priority distinctions between realtime threads? Maybe. I can't say for sure. I'll be interested to see what happens when Con is re

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: I'm wondering now if the lack of priority support in the two prototypes might explain the problems I'm seeing. Distinctly possible since my results got better with priority support. However I'm still bugfixing what I've got. Just as a data point here is an incremental patch for

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jack O'Quin wrote: [snip lots of valid points] suggest some things to try. First, make sure the JACK tmp directory is mounted on a tmpfs[1]. Then, try the test with ext2, instead of Looks like the tmpfs is probably the

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: [snip lots of valid points] suggest some things to try. First, make sure the JACK tmp directory is mounted on a tmpfs[1]. Then, try the test with ext2, instead of Looks like the tmpfs is probably the biggest problem. Here's SCHED_ISO with just the /tmp mounted on tmpfs change

Re: Supermount / ivman

Gustavo Guillermo Perez wrote: Cause I play with old toys, (floppys) and ivman doesn't work properly on the lastest gentoo with floppys, I retouch for a while the supermount patch from sourceforge for kernel 2.6.11-rc1. I'm a n00b on kernel, I do this only for general purposes helping some frie

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Paul Davis wrote: The idea is to get equivalent performance to SCHED_FIFO. The results show that much, and it is 100 times better than unprivileged SCHED_NORMAL. The fact that this is an unoptimised normal desktop environment means that the conclusion we _can_ draw is that SCHED_ISO is as good

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Neither run exhibits reliable audio performance. There is some low latency performance problem with your system. Maybe ReiserFS is causing trouble even with logging turned off. Perhaps the problem is somewhere else. Maybe some device is misbehaving. Until you solve this probl

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So let's try again, sorry about the noise: ==> jack_test4-2.6.11-rc1-mm2-fifo.log <== * XRUN Count . . . . . . . . . : 3 Delay Maximum . . . . .

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: Con Kolivas wrote: Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here's fresh results on more stressed hardware (on ext3) with 2.6.11-rc1-mm2 (which by the way has SCHED_ISO v2 included). The load hovering at 50% spikes at times close to 70

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here's fresh results on more stressed hardware (on ext3) with 2.6.11-rc1-mm2 (which by the way has SCHED_ISO v2 included). The load hovering at 50% spikes at times close to 70 which tests the beh

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here's fresh results on more stressed hardware (on ext3) with 2.6.11-rc1-mm2 (which by the way has SCHED_ISO v2 included). The load hovering at 50% spikes at times close to 70 which tests the behaviour under iso throttlin

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Here's fresh results on more stressed hardware (on ext3) with 2.6.11-rc1-mm2 (which by the way has SCHED_ISO v2 included). The load hovering at 50% spikes at times close to 70 which tests the behaviour under iso throttlin

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

utz lehmann wrote: On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 10:48 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: utz lehmann wrote: Hi I dislike the behavior of the SCHED_ISO patch that iso tasks are degraded to SCHED_NORMAL if they exceed the limit. IMHO it's better to throttle them at the iso_cpu limit. I have modified Con&#

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Rui Nuno Capela wrote: OK. Here goes my fresh and newly jack_test4.1 test suite. It might be still rough, as usual ;) Thanks Here's fresh results on more stressed hardware (on ext3) with 2.6.11-rc1-mm2 (which by the way has SCHED_ISO v2 included). The load hovering at 50% spikes at times close to

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

utz lehmann wrote: Hi I dislike the behavior of the SCHED_ISO patch that iso tasks are degraded to SCHED_NORMAL if they exceed the limit. IMHO it's better to throttle them at the iso_cpu limit. I have modified Con's iso2 patch to do this. If iso_cpu > 50 iso tasks only get stalled for 1 tick (1ms o

[PATCH] sched: account rt_tasks as iso_ticks

SCHED_ISO tasks should have their cpu accounting be a proportion of ticks that would normally be available for SCHED_NORMAL tasks. Add ticks consumed by rt_tasks to the iso_ticks variable and comments. Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.11-rc1-mm2/kernel/s

Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm2

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 07:06:31PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: Wont boot. Stops after BIOS check successful. Tried reverting a couple of patches mentioning boot or reboot and had no luck. Any ideas? ... Known bug that came from Linus' tree, already fixed in Linus'

Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] plugsched-2.0 patches ...

Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote: Paraphrasing Jens Axboe: I don't think you can compare [plugsched with the plugio framework]. Yes they are both schedulers, but that's about where the 'similarity' stops. The CPU scheduler must be really fast, overhead must be kept to a minimum. For a disk scheduler, we ca

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Rui Nuno Capela wrote: Jack O'Quin wrote: [...] Looking at the graph, it appears that your DSP load is hovering above 70% most of the time. This happens to be the default threshold for revoking realtime privileges. Perhaps that is the problem. Try running it with the threshold set to 90%. (I do

Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm2

Andrew Morton wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stops after BIOS check successful. earlyprintk on What does this mean, btw? Can you be more specific about where it gets stuck? It says decompressing BIOS check successful and then sits there If you mean that it actually pri

Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm2

Andrew Morton wrote: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.11-rc1/2.6.11-rc1-mm2/ - There are a bunch of ioctl() and compat_ioctl() changes in here which seem to be of dubious maturity. Could people involved in this area please review, test and let me know? - A reva

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:42:24AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: over on #ardour last week, we saw appalling performance from reiserfs. a 120GB filesystem with 11GB of space failed to be able to deliver enough read/write speed to keep up with a 16 track session. When the filesys

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

prio)) + __clear_bit(p->prio, old_array->bitmap); + p->prio = MAX_RT_PRIO; list_add_tail(&p->run_list, array->queue + p->prio); __set_bit(p->prio, array->bitmap); -out: + array->nr_active++; + p->array = array; + return p; } Excellent pickup, thanks! Acke

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: Jack O'Quin wrote: I was misreading the x-axis. They're actually every 20 sec. My system isn't doing that. Possibly reiserfs journal related. That has larger non-preemptible code sections. You're really getting hammered with those periodic 6 msec delays

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: If I look at those png's locally (with gimp or gqview) they have a dark grey checkerboard background. If I look at them on the web (with galeon), the background is white. Go figure. Maybe the file has no background? I dunno. Yes there's no background so it depends on what you

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

utz lehmann wrote: I had experimented with throttling runaway RT tasks. I use a similar accounting. I saw a difference between counting with or without the calling from fork. If i remember correctly the timeout expired too fast if the non-RT load was "while /bin/true; do :; done". With "while true;

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Does it degrade significantly with a compile running in the background? Check results below. Full results and pretty pictures available here: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/iso2-benchmarks/ More pretty pictures with c

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Con Kolivas wrote: Here are my results with SCHED_ISO v2 on a pentium-M 1.7Ghz (all powersaving features off): Increasing iso_cpu did not change the results. At least in my testing on my hardware, v2 is working as adverti

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: This is version 2 of the SCHED_ISO patch with the yield bug fixed and code cleanups. ...answering on this thread to consolidate the two branches of the email thread. Here are my results with SCHED_ISO v2 on a pentium-M 1.7Ghz (all powersaving features off): SCHED_NORMAL

Re: [PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

utz lehmann wrote: @@ -2406,6 +2489,10 @@ void scheduler_tick(void) task_t *p = current; rq->timestamp_last_tick = sched_clock(); + if (iso_task(p) && !rq->iso_refractory) + inc_iso_ticks(rq, p); + else + dec_iso_ticks(rq, p); scheduler_tick() is not only called by the timer interrupt but

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Try again with JACK 0.99.48. It's in CVS now, but you probably need this tarball to get around the dreaded SourceForge anon CVS lag... http://www.joq.us/jack/tarballs/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.99.48.tar.gz Thanks it finally ran to completion. By the way the patch you sent w

[PATCH]sched: Isochronous class v2 for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

used as a wrapper to start SCHED_ISO tasks schedtool -I -e xmms for example Patch also available here: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/ Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.11-rc1-iso/include/l

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Just as a headsup there is a new cleaned up patch here: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/2.6.11-rc1-iso-0501192240.diff The yield bug is still eluding my capture but appears to be related to the array switch of yielding and rescheduling as ISO after the fact. Still working on it. Cheers,

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This patch for 2.6.11-rc1 provides a method of providing real time scheduling to unprivileged users which increasingly is desired for multimedia workloads. I ran some jack_test3.2 runs with this, using all the default set

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Jack O'Quin wrote: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: This patch for 2.6.11-rc1 provides a method of providing real time scheduling to unprivileged users which increasingly is desired for multimedia workloads. I ran some jack_test3.2 runs with this, using all the default set

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

utz wrote: Hi Con I just played with your SCHED_ISO patch and found a simple way to crash my machine. I'm running this as unprivileged user with SCHED_ISO: main () { while(1) { sched_yield(); } } The system hangs about 3s and then reboots itself. 2.6.11-rc1 + 2.6.11-

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 10:17 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: Cal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run twic

Re: [ck] [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Cal wrote: Con Kolivas wrote: Comments and testing welcome. There's a collection of test summaries from jack_test3.2 runs at <http://www.graggrag.com/ck-tests/ck-tests-0501182249.txt> Tests were run with iso_cpu at 70, 90, 99, 100, each test was run twice. The discrepancies between

Re: [PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

Con Kolivas wrote: This patch for 2.6.11-rc1 provides a method of providing real time scheduling to unprivileged users which increasingly is desired for multimedia workloads. I should have mentioned. Many thanks to Alex Nyberg for generous debugging help. Cheers, Con signature.asc Description

2.6.10-ck5

These are patches designed to improve system responsiveness. It is configurable to any workload but the default ck* patch is aimed at the desktop and ck*-server is available with more emphasis on serverspace. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.10/2.6.10-ck5/ web: http://kernel.kolivas.org all

[PATCH][RFC] sched: Isochronous class for unprivileged soft rt scheduling

available here: http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/SCHED_ISO/ Comments and testing welcome. Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: linux-2.6.11-rc1/include/linux/init_task.h === --- linux-2.6.11-rc1.orig/include/linux/ini

<    1   2   3   4   5   6