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

    * Bill Huey <> 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.

    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: 2006-04-07 12:57    [W:0.020 / U:14.280 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site