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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Sitsofe Wheeler
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 6:18 am

Ingo Molnar wrote:

What about the piece leading up to that:

              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752092: del_timer <-schedule_timeout
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.772263: account_scheduler_latency 
<-enqueue_task_fair
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773224: __tasklet_schedule <-kbd_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773225: schedule_console_callback 
<-kbd_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773225: schedule_work 
<-schedule_console_callback
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773226: queue_work <-schedule_work
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773232: account_scheduler_latency 
<-enqueue_task_fair
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773240: account_scheduler_latency 
<-enqueue_task_fair
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773251: schedule_delayed_work 
<-put_queue
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773251: queue_delayed_work 
<-schedule_delayed_work
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773258: schedule_console_callback 
<-kbd_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773258: schedule_work 
<-schedule_console_callback
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773259: queue_work <-schedule_work
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773267: schedule_console_callback 
<-kbd_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773268: schedule_work 
<-schedule_console_callback
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.773268: queue_work <-schedule_work
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.807931: account_scheduler_latency 
<-enqueue_task_fair
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839464: __tasklet_schedule <-ath5k_intr

Here's a snippet from 
http://sucs.org/~sits/test/eeepc-debug/20080929/trace-on-battery.txt.bz2 :
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752092: del_timer <-schedule_timeout
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752092: acpi_ec_check_status 
<-acpi_ec_wait
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752093: constant_test_bit 
<-acpi_ec_check_status
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752095: mutex_unlock 
<-acpi_ec_transaction
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752096: acpi_ex_enter_interpreter 
<-acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752097: acpi_os_wait_semaphore 
<-acpi_ut_acquire_mutex
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752097: down_timeout 
<-acpi_os_wait_semaphore
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752098: acpi_ex_release_global_lock 
<-acpi_ex_read_data_from_field
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752099: acpi_ex_release_mutex_object 
<-acpi_ex_release_global_lock
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752100: acpi_ev_release_global_lock 
<-acpi_ex_release_mutex_object
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752100: __acpi_release_global_lock 
<-acpi_ev_release_global_lock
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752101: acpi_os_signal_semaphore 
<-acpi_ev_release_global_lock
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.752102: up <-acpi_os_signal_semaphore
...
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839447: 
acpi_ex_truncate_for32bit_table <-acpi_ds_exec_end_op
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839447: acpi_ps_next_parse_state 
<-acpi_ps_parse_loop
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839448: acpi_ps_complete_op 
<-acpi_ps_parse_loop
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839448: acpi_ps_complete_this_op 
<-acpi_ps_complete_op
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839449: acpi_ps_delete_parse_tree 
<-acpi_ps_complete_this_op
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839449: acpi_ps_get_arg 
<-acpi_ps_delete_parse_tree
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839450: acpi_ps_get_opcode_info 
<-acpi_ps_get_arg
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839450: acpi_ps_get_arg 
<-acpi_ps_delete_parse_tree
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839451: acpi_ps_get_opcode_info 
<-acpi_ps_get_arg
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839452: do_IRQ <-common_interrupt
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839453: irq_enter <-do_IRQ
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839453: irq_to_desc <-do_IRQ
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839454: handle_fasteoi_irq <-do_IRQ
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839455: handle_IRQ_event 
<-handle_fasteoi_irq
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839455: usb_hcd_irq <-handle_IRQ_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839456: uhci_irq <-usb_hcd_irq
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839458: ath5k_intr <-handle_IRQ_event
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839459: ath5k_hw_is_intr_pending 
<-ath5k_intr
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839461: ath5k_hw_get_isr <-ath5k_intr
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.839464: __tasklet_schedule <-ath5k_intr


Why didn't another process cut in from 1392.752092 to 1392.839464? In 
the schedule grep normally runs for cat are half as long e.g.:

           <idle>-0     [000]  1392.747102: __switch_to <-schedule
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747103: del_timer <-schedule_timeout
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747107: 
schedule_timeout_uninterruptible <-msleep
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747107: schedule_timeout 
<-schedule_timeout_uninterruptible
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747108: init_timer <-schedule_timeout
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747108: __mod_timer <-schedule_timeout
              cat-7717  [000]  1392.747111: __switch_to <-schedule
           <idle>-0     [000]  1392.749067: account_scheduler_latency 
<-enqueue_task_fair


Further why (after taking a break to process the ath5k interrupt) did it 
not schedule another process other than cat until 1393.033226:

              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033215: set_normalized_timespec 
<-ktime_get_ts
              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033216: ktime_add_safe 
<-hrtimer_start_range_ns
              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033217: ktime_add_safe 
<-hrtimer_start_range_ns
              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033217: enqueue_hrtimer 
<-hrtimer_start_range_ns
              cat-7717  [000]  1393.033222: __switch_to <-schedule
  hald-addon-inpu-3237  [000]  1393.033226: fget_light <-do_sys_poll

-- 
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Fri Sep 19, 4:54 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri Sep 19, 7:20 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Steven Rostedt, (Mon Sep 22, 5:07 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Mon Sep 22, 11:33 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 9:30 am)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 12:39 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 23, 3:01 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Sun Sep 28, 1:56 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Mon Sep 29, 4:11 pm)
Re: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?, Sitsofe Wheeler, (Tue Sep 30, 6:18 am)