[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: SCHED_RR and kernel threads
    Stephen Warren writes:

    >> From: Con Kolivas []
    >> Stephen Warren writes:
    >>> I guess we could have most threads stay at SCHED_NORMAL, and just
    > make
    >>> the few critical threads SCHED_RR, but I'm getting a lot of push-back
    > on
    >>> this, since it makes our thread API a lot more complex.
    >>Your workaround is not suitable for the kernel at large.
    > You mean the official kernel? I wasn't implying that the
    > patch should be part of that!
    > In our system we have literally EVERY single thread (kernel, user-space
    > daemons, and user-space applications) all setup as SCHED_RR with
    > identical priority at present, except a couple higher priority threads.
    > We did this initially for user-space by replacing /sbin/init with a
    > wrapper that set the scheduler policy and default priority, and verified
    > that this was inherited by all daemons & application threads. Then, we
    > found that the kernel threads could get starved in some situations,
    > hence the kernel change.
    > Our threading model dictates that every thread have a priority (so that
    > the thread model is portable between Linux, embedded RTOSs etc.), and in
    > Linux AFAIK, the only way to implement priorities is to use a real-time
    > scheduling policy. Some threads do a lot of calculation. We want to make
    > them equal (or probably, lower) priority to the kernel threads, so
    > therefore the kernel threads must then be SCHED_RR.
    > Can you elaborate on specific conditions that would cause the kernel
    > threads to suck up unusual amounts of CPU time?
    > In our application, keyboard processing is a real-time requirement, so
    > if that is performed in a kernel thread, that kernel thread should be
    > real-time. We basically want the control to insert e.g. the keyboard
    > processing kernel thread into the middle of our priority hierarchy,
    > rather than having it forced as the lowest possible priority.
    > I get the impression you're implying that scheduling doesn't work
    > correctly in this situation - that if kernel threads are set to
    > SCHED_RR, they can still lock out user-space threads of the same or
    > higher priority? Is this what you're saying, or do you mean that the
    > kernel threads can lock out user-space threads of *lower* priority,
    > which is to be expected. In all the RTOS's I've seen, all threads are
    > SCHED_RR, thus mimicking the situation we've creating by patching our
    > kernel...

    If everything is the same priority then you've created a simple round robin
    scheduler out of the kernel and that's fine for your setting. If you're
    looking for another alternative to this, check out the email I posted in the
    last week for implementing a sched bound policy. We will be looking at
    implementing that in the near future.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.028 / U:9.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site