Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:26:21 -0700 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Real Time Runqueue |
| |
Mike Kravetz writes: > As you may know, a few of us are experimenting with multi-runqueue > scheduler implementations. One area of concern is where to place > realtime tasks. It has been my assumption, that POSIX RT semantics > require a specific ordering of tasks such as SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR. > To accommodate this ordering, I further believe that the simplest > solution is to ensure that all realtime tasks reside on the same > runqueue. In our MQ scheduler we have a separate runqueue for all > realtime tasks. The problem is that maintaining a separate realtime > runqueue is a pain and results in some fairly complex/ugly code. > > Since I'm not a realtime expert, I would like to ask if my assumption > about strict ordering of RT tasks is accurate. Also, is anyone aware > of other ways to approach this problem?
Yes, strict ordering is required. Years ago I championed a separate runqueue for RT tasks. Linus even said he liked the approach. I got busy and never nursed it to inclusion. The patch is here: ftp://ftp.atnf.csiro.au/pub/people/rgooch/linux/kernel-patches/v2.1/rtqueue-patch
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/
|  |