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

[Con Kolivas]

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:
awk: ./jack_test3_summary.awk:67: (FILENAME=- FNR=862) fatal: division 
by zero attempted
Well we wont bother looking at those results then. there were 38 XRUNS 
that did make it on the parsed output.


SCHED_FIFO:
*********************************************
Timeout Count . . . . . . . . :(    0)
XRUN Count  . . . . . . . . . :     4
Delay Count (>spare time) . . :    18
Delay Count (>1000 usecs) . . :     0
Delay Maximum . . . . . . . . :  6595   usecs
Cycle Maximum . . . . . . . . :   368   usecs
Average DSP Load. . . . . . . :    17.9 %
Average CPU System Load . . . :     3.4 %
Average CPU User Load . . . . :    13.7 %
Average CPU Nice Load . . . . :     0.0 %
Average CPU I/O Wait Load . . :     1.4 %
Average CPU IRQ Load  . . . . :     0.6 %
Average CPU Soft-IRQ Load . . :     0.0 %
Average Interrupt Rate  . . . :  1697.0 /sec
Average Context-Switch Rate . : 13334.1 /sec
*********************************************


SCHED_ISO (iso_cpu 70):
*********************************************
Timeout Count . . . . . . . . :(    0)
XRUN Count  . . . . . . . . . :     5
Delay Count (>spare time) . . :    18
Delay Count (>1000 usecs) . . :     0
Delay Maximum . . . . . . . . :  6489   usecs
Cycle Maximum . . . . . . . . :   405   usecs
Average DSP Load. . . . . . . :    18.0 %
Average CPU System Load . . . :     3.3 %
Average CPU User Load . . . . :    13.7 %
Average CPU Nice Load . . . . :     0.0 %
Average CPU I/O Wait Load . . :     0.0 %
Average CPU IRQ Load  . . . . :     0.6 %
Average CPU Soft-IRQ Load . . :     0.0 %
Average Interrupt Rate  . . . :  1700.2 /sec
Average Context-Switch Rate . : 12457.2 /sec
*********************************************


Increasing iso_cpu did not change the results.

At least in my testing on my hardware, v2 is working as advertised. I 
need results from more hardware configurations to know if priority 
support is worth adding or not.

Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/