lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RT task scheduling

* Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:19:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > -ENOPARSE. CPU binding brings with itself obvious disadvantages that
> > some applications are not ready to pay. CPU binding restricts the
> > scheduler from achieving best resource utilization. That may be fine for
> > some applications, but is not good enough for a good number of
> > applications. So in no way can any 'CPU binding mechanism' (which
> > already exists in multiple forms) replace the need and desire for a
> > globally scheduled class of RT tasks.
>
> You're discussing a different problem than what I'm talking about.
> [...]

no, i'm discussing precisely the point you raised:

>>> You should consider for a moment to allow for the binding of a
>>> thread to a CPU to determine the behavior of a SCHED_FIFO class task
>>> instead of creating a new run category. [...]

with the observation that 1) binding is already possible [so your
suggestion is apparently knocking on open doors] 2) binding is a
separate mechanism (not adequate for all workloads) and it is thus
orthogonal to what i'm trying to achieve with the "RT overload" stuff.
Really simple and straightforward observations i think.

Ingo
-
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 12:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site