[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Ingo Molnar and Con Kolivas 2.6 scheduler patches
On Wednesday 06 August 2003 22:28, Rob Landley wrote:
> So, how does SCHED_SOFTRR fail? Theoretically there is a minimum timeslice
> you can hand out, yes? And an upper bound on scheduling latency. So
> logically, there is some maximum number "N" of SCHED_SOFTRR tasks running
> at once where you wind up round-robining with minimal timeslices and the
> system is saturated. At N+1, you fall over. (And in reality, there are
> interrupts and kernel threads and other things going on that get kind of
> cramped somewhere below N.)

The upper bound for softrr realtime scheduling isn't based on number of tasks,
it's a global slice of cpu time: so long as the sum of running times of all
softrr tasks in the system lies below limit, softrr tasks will be scheduled
as SCHED_RR, otherwise they will be SCHED_NORMAL.

> In theory, the real benefit of SCHED_SOFTRR is that an attempt to switch to
> it can fail with -EMYBRAINISMELTING up front, so you know when it won't
> work at the start, rather than having it glitch halfway through the run.

Not as implemented. Anyway, from the user's point of view, that would be an
unpleasant way for a sound player to fail. What we want is something more
like a little red light that comes on (in the form of error statistics, say)
any time a softrr process gets demoted. Granted, there may be situations
where what you want is the right behavior, but it's (as you say) a separate
issue of resource allocation.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.219 / U:1.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site