[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:0.064 / U:2.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site