Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Apr 2006 00:54:30 -0700 | Subject | Re: RT task scheduling | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 09:25:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > to the contrary, the "RT overload" code in the -rt tree does strict, > > system-wide RT priority scheduling. That's the whole point of it. > > so after this "clarification of terminology" i hope you are in picture > now, so could you please explain to me what you meant by:
> > > 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. [...] > > to me it still makes no sense, and much of the followups were based on > this. Or were you simply confused about what the scheduling code in -rt > does precisely? Did that get clarified now?
The last time I looked at it I thought it did something pretty simplistic in that it just dumped any RT thread to another CPU but didn't do it in a strict manner with regard to priority. Maybe that's changed or else I didn't pay attention to it that as carefully as I thought.
As far as CPU binding goes, I'm wanting a method of getting around the latency of the rt overload logic in certain cases at the expense of rebalancing. That's what I ment by it.
bill
- 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/
| |