[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RT task scheduling

    * Bill Huey <> wrote:

    > 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.

    well as Darren's testcase shows, it might still have some bug - but the
    mechanism is intended to be strict. (the implementation had a couple of
    strictness bugs (they show up as long latencies on SMP) but those were
    ironed out months ago.)

    > 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.

    yeah, that certainly makes sense, and it's one reason why i'm thinking
    about the separate SCHED_FIFO_GLOBAL policy for 'globally scheduled' RT
    tasks, while still keeping the current lightweight non-global RT
    scheduling. Global scheduling either means a global lock, or as in the
    -rt implementation means a "global IPI", but there's always a nontrivial
    "global" cost involved.

    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: 2006-04-08 10:08    [W:0.022 / U:9.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site