[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: massive_intr on CFS, BFS, and EDF
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 15:31 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 09/25/2009 10:07 AM, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> > It is important to note that
> > the expected behavior of an edf scheduler is *not* a fair one. It has to
> > do its best to guarantee the deadlines of the admitted tasks.
> Do you allow oversubscription with EDF? It would seem so based on these
> results. Would it maybe make sense to disallow oversubscription, or
> make it an option?

afaiu he doesn't, he simply splits the task's wcet between parent and
child and (intends?) to feed back on child exit.

> If you have massive oversubscription with EDF, what is the design
> intent? Do you try to meet the goals on as many tasks as possible,
> while the oversubscribed tasks get nothing?

oversubscribing edf isn't in general recommended, iirc u>1 gives
unbounded latencies with edf.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-26 00:41    [W:0.058 / U:4.668 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site