lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: report a bug about sched_rt
    From
    2009/7/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
    > On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 23:07 +0800, sen wang wrote:
    >> 2009/7/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
    >> > On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 22:04 +0800, sen wang wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> just one question:
    >> >> if cpu is free and there is running state task, how you do?
    >> >> schedule the task up? or schedule idle task up?
    >> >
    >> > Well, when an RT group is over the bandwidth limit I don't consider them
    >> > runnable. Therefore, failing to find any other tasks, we run the idle
    >> > task.
    >> >
    >>
    >> you havn't anwser the question: if cpu is free, should we  schedule the
    >> running state task or idle task?
    >
    > It it not runnable because the group is over its limit.
    >
    >> face the error and fix it! ok?
    >
    > Please tone down and re-read the explanations I gave.
    >
    > The throttle is an H-CBS services for RT task groups, meant to provide
    > isolation through a fixed resource guarantee.
    >
    > Any process actually hitting the throttle means a miss configured system
    > -- unless its a temporary overload and you're able to deal with those.
    >
    > The single group case is simply the trivial case thereof.
    >
    > Your proposed change does not generalize to such a framework, and while
    > it might work with the current code, it doesn't serve a use-case
    > considered in this architecture and will render the interface
    > inconsistent.
    >
    > Furthermore, future work in this area will not be able to support your
    > changed semantics in a sane fashion.
    >
    > I've yet to see any coherent explanation of your problem, and quite
    > frankly I find your attitude offensive.
    >
    > As you say, Linux is an open-source effort, and you're free to do with
    > your copy as you see fit (provided you stick to the rules stipulated by
    > the GPLv2). However as co-maintainer of the mainline scheduler I see no
    > reason to entertain your change, nor for that matter to continue this
    > discussion.
    >
    >

    sorry for my tone, If you feel hurted. I apologize.

    But I still hold my viewpoint. I just want the 100-x time should be
    used by running task.
    --
    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: 2009-07-24 17:45    [W:0.023 / U:66.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site