Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?

[Sitsofe Wheeler]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> does it get better if you have CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y enabled? That 

CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y has always been enabled in these results.

> _should_ break up this section neatly. If it doesnt then please add a 
> might_sleep() check to kernel/kernel/semaphore.c's down_timeout() 
> function - that is called a number of times in this trace.

I added might_sleep() to the start of down_timeout() but it neither 
printed anything to dmesg nor changed the latency issue...

Strangely stalling only seems to turn up in linux-tip kernels with very 
little debugging options set within them. I have a linux-tip that has 
lots of extra debugging options set and this problem doesn't show up...

I've also asked about this on the ACPI mailing list and had a huge 
amount of help from finding a good point for a cond_resched - 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=122236450105747&w=2 . Certain things 
(like games) still stutter when the battery is read but it's enough to 
play back sound in rhythmbox without stuttering.

Any ideas why the issue would go away with a debug kernel though?

--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
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/