Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Apr 2006 12:51:41 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: RT task scheduling |
| |
* Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:19:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > -ENOPARSE. CPU binding brings with itself obvious disadvantages that > > some applications are not ready to pay. CPU binding restricts the > > scheduler from achieving best resource utilization. That may be fine for > > some applications, but is not good enough for a good number of > > applications. So in no way can any 'CPU binding mechanism' (which > > already exists in multiple forms) replace the need and desire for a > > globally scheduled class of RT tasks. > > You're discussing a different problem than what I'm talking about. > [...]
no, i'm discussing precisely the point you raised:
>>> You should consider for a moment to allow for the binding of a >>> thread to a CPU to determine the behavior of a SCHED_FIFO class task >>> instead of creating a new run category. [...]
with the observation that 1) binding is already possible [so your suggestion is apparently knocking on open doors] 2) binding is a separate mechanism (not adequate for all workloads) and it is thus orthogonal to what i'm trying to achieve with the "RT overload" stuff. Really simple and straightforward observations i think.
Ingo - 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/
| |