correct. but it is limited only to:
1. accessing ***vmalloc**** space ***directly*** . You can access any kmalloc'ed address directly , and access vmalloc'ed space by walking on the pages. what I mean is that you can access everything.
2. unable to kmalloc
3. unable to free memory. ( For example : kfree ).
>- 1us accurate timer.
>Standard gettimeofday gives me that. The system has plenty very accurate timers, the problem is transferring that info fast enough to where it's needed.
gettimeofday is not a timer, it is a clock. try and schedule a task to be run T microseconds from now, you will skew, and the more tasks , it will skew more.
>- Firewall/routing/etc. offloading.
>This is totally real-time unrelated. Basically it wastes one whole core on doing that instead of letting that core do also other things, and adds extra communication overhead between cores/subsystems (still need to get the packets from somewhere and tell which ones go where etc). It seems the same can be achieved by pinning the NIC interrupts to one core and >giving all network related stuff highest priority.
First, you are correct . It is real time unrelated. offsched is not just for real time use, but for many other things.having high ingest traffic means you will probably enable NAPI, and NAPI disables incoming interrupts to reduce interrupts overhead, and even with NAPI you may get your system to be jammed, and worst of all even with unrelated traffic, offsched suggests another approach of containing incoming traffic to a single or more cores. This way cpu0 , the main operating system processor, will not be at risk. Also, in regard to the waste of processors, again you are correct; but offsched is not meant to be used on your laptop, but on appliances with several cores; which , unfortunately never achieve linear speed-up.
>You basically replace standard processes with very limited kernel code running on dedicated core. I don't say this is a bad idea in itself, but for this to make sense you want to have many (independent, low power) cores. I suspect that PC hardware isn't very suitable for this, because too much is shared by cores. It probably makes more sense for embedded systems, but even there it's questionable because of the kernel code only limitation.
You can access any facility in the kernel. you can send or receive packets. and I do it on AMD-Intel machines successfully.
>What's the advantage of offsched compared to running a user space process at real-time priority pinned on a core with interrupts disabled?
you cannot run user space with interrupts disabled. So you probably meant kernel space, and it will look something like this:
but you will fail.
a processor must walk trough a quiescent state ; if you try it, you will have RCU starvation, and I have been there... :) . one of my papers explains that.
>Or in other words, what problem does your approach solve?
I merely suggest a different approach for real time and security for machine with several cores or hyper threading.
I am using offsched on my appliances for network work.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds