lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: RT task scheduling
    From
    On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:25:04PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
    > Part of the issue here is to define what we consider "correct behavior" for
    > SCHED_FIFO realtime tasks. Do we (A) need to strive for "strict realtime
    > priority scheduling" where the NR_CPUS highest priority runnable SCHED_FIFO
    > tasks are _always_ running? Or do we (B) take the best effort approach with
    > an upper limit RT priority imbalances, where an imbalance may occur (say at
    > wakeup or exit) but will be remedied within 1 tick. The smpnice patches
    > improve load balancing, but don't provide (A).

    I regret getting into this discussion late, but it should always be (A)
    if you're building a kernel for strict RT usage. (B) is for a system that's
    more general purpose. It's not a "one policy fits all" kind of problem.

    The search costs of (A) could be be significant and may degrade system
    performance. Optimizations for that case is for another discussion.

    bill

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-07 11:26    [W:0.038 / U:0.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site