Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] sched/core: Add permission checks for setting the latency_nice value

[Tim Janik]

Hi.

On 19.09.22 14:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks you for describing in detail your use case.

> Ok, Your explanation makes sense to me especially because we want to
> ensure to not provide more cpu time with this latency prio. I'm
> curious to see the feedback from others about the reason we want
> CAP_SYS_NICE other than following nice priority.
>
> Side question, Have you tried this patchset (minus this patch) with
> your use case ?

I have now tested a modified version of the ALSA Test_latency.c program 
that acquires latency nice as non-root:
  https://gist.github.com/tim-janik/88f9df5456b879ecc59da93dc6ce6be1

With a busy but not overloaded CPU, the short time latency tests are 
often better, measured with: ./lnice-latency -p -s 1

But the results aren't very reliable with this test. I.e. requesting a 
latency nice value of -20 reduces the chance for underruns somewhat but 
doesn't eliminate them (and lnice-latency.c gives up on the first XRUN 
in the given time period). It might be better to instead count the XRUN 
occurances over a given time pertiod.


--
Anklang Free Software DAW
https://anklang.testbit.eu/