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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Logs with the filtering on can be seen here (15Mbytes decompressed each):
> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080923/latency_trace.gz
> http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080923/trace.txt.gz
>
> It looks like lots of acpi state is created and deleted...

yeah. The latency starts here:

     cat-5901    0dNh.    1us : default_wake_function (__wake_up_common)
     cat-5901    0.Nh.    2us : kill_fasync (snd_pcm_period_elapsed)
     [...]

and ends here:

     [...]
     cat-5901    0.N.. 270501us+: mutex_lock (acpi_ec_transaction)
     cat-5901    0d... 270507us : __cond_resched (_cond_resched)

270 _milliseconds_ later. That's excessive.

The main overhead is starting here:

     cat-5901    0.N..  167us : acpi_ds_result_push (acpi_ds_exec_end_op)

lots of ACPI code executed ...

does it get better if you have CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y enabled? That 
_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.

	Ingo
--
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/