lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.096 / U:3.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site