lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel]

> It looks to me like Jim and Bjoern name the kernel-mutex locking scheme
> (of non-preemption and FIFO queueing) as FMLP and advocate it for
> user-level mutexes. Jim: Please correct me if my interpretation is
> incorrect.

I should have addressed this, sorry.

Actually, I don't advocate for anything. :-) As I said in my very
first email in this thread, in the LTIMUS^RT project, changing Linux
is not one of our goals. I leave that to other people who are way
smarter than me.

But to the point you raise, please note that the long version of the
FMLP is a little more than combining non-preemption with FIFO waiting
since waiting is via suspension. And as I said in an earlier email,
we designed it for a real-time (only) environment. However, I think
a user-level variant that could be used in a more general environment
would certainly be possible.

-Jim

P.S. We didn't talk about the low processor utlization (Dhall effect)
mentioned in your last email. However, that applies to hard real-time
workloads, not soft real-time workloads. This discussion has been
touching on both.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-16 21:51    [W:0.090 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site