lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Trying out SCHED_BATCH
    Maciej Soltysiak wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > Con wrote:
    >
    >> Only the staircase scheduler currently has an implementation of
    >> sched_batch and you need 2 more patches on top of the staircase patch
    >> for it to work.
    >
    > Hmm, Is it feasable to write a sched_batch policy for the current linux
    > schedulers?

    Yes.

    The proper way to make a sched_batch implementation is more
    comprehensive than what is made for staircase to prevent a deadlock
    based on a batch task getting an important lock in the kernel and not
    being able to release it due to a sched_normal task being higher
    priority than it that is actually trying to get the lock. There is code
    in the staircase version to prevent this from happening but probably not
    complete enough in design to prevent everything. However it works and I
    haven't had any reports of lockups since I implemented the extra checking.

    Would you like me to create a version like that? I don't have the time
    to try and make a more comprehensive solution and follow the debugging
    of such a beast.

    > I mean, if there are people that want it bad, maybe it would be nice to
    > be able
    > to use a version of sched_batch that would work without the staircase
    > scheduler.
    > It is still experimental, right?

    No it's not experimental. It is very stable and used in production systems.

    Con
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.021 / U:121.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site