[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:0.043 / U:8.668 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site