lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [sched-devel, patch-rfc] rework of "prioritizenon-migratabletasks over migratable ones"
    >>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at  6:39 AM, in message <20080618103919.GH15255@elte.hu>,
    Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

    > * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
    >
    >> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, in message
    >> <1213643862.16944.142.camel@twins>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
    >> wrote:
    >> > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:59 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> One way or another, we have different aritifacts (and mine have likely
    >> >> more) but conceptually, both "violates" POSIX if a strict round-robin
    >> >> scheduling is required.
    >> >
    >> >
    > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#t
    >> > ag_02_08_04_01
    >> >
    >> > Is quite strict on what FIFO should do, and I know of two points where
    >> > we deviate and should work to match.
    >>
    >> Thanks for the link, Peter. When you read that, its pretty clear that
    >> this whole concept violates the standard. Its probably best to just
    >> revert the patch and be done with it.
    >
    > no, there's no spec violation here - the spec is silent on SMP issues.
    >
    > the spec should not be read to force a global runqueue for RT tasks.
    > That would be silly beyond imagination.
    >
    > so ... lets apply Dmitry's nice simplification, hm?

    Hmm...I guess that is a good way to look at it. Sounds good, thanks!

    Perhaps I will write up a patch against his that fixes that suboptimal detection problem that he highlighted, afterall

    Thanks,
    -Greg




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-18 13:55    [W:0.023 / U:2.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site