Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: massive_intr on CFS, BFS, and EDF | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:37:38 +0200 |
| |
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.
| |