[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: patch] Real-Time Preemption, plist fixes
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Esben Nielsen <> wrote:
> > When K is a constant or bounded by a constant (140 in this
> > application) any function which is O(K) is O(1) per definition of O!
> technically you are right. But the question is - while K is considered a
> constant, and N (nr_running_RT_tasks) is technically not bounded - in
> practice N is bounded just as much. Have you ever seen any hard-RT
> application that has more than 140 threads _running at the same time_ on
> a single CPU? You can even enforce it to be theoretically bounded, via
> ulimits.
> in fact, K and N should be pretty close to each other for most
> applications. I'd be interested in real application scenarios where N is
> much (== more than 10 times) larger than K and plists really matter.

I think that would only be the case when an application has an error. The
problem now is: Say you have two RT applications running, one living
in priority 0-49 and one in 50-99. Let us say the second has such an
error, like keep spawning threads whichs blocks on a mutex owned by a task
which is blocked forever. Without plists such an error will kill the high
priority RT task. With plists it will only see a _limited_ effect on it's

You can say plists is better at isolating applications wrt. timing than
ordinary sorted lists.

> Ingo

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: 2005-06-05 11:04    [W:0.065 / U:2.444 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site