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

    On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 21:28 -0700, Vernon Mauery wrote:

    > 1) Deterministic scheduling algorithms (SWSRPS). Basically, with uniprocessor
    > systems (or smp with a global run queue), it was really easy to say, run the
    > highest priority task in the queue. But when there are several queues that
    > are independent of each other, it is difficult. According to SWSRPS, nr_cpus
    > highest priority runnable tasks should _always_ be running (regardless of
    > which queue they are on). This might mean that there are longer latencies a)
    > to determine the nr_cpus highest priority tasks and b) because of cache
    > issues.

    Yep, and task cpu dancing. Everytime a High prio task preempts a lower
    prio RT task, that RT task might be pushed to another CPU.

    > 2) Maximum deterministic latency. A task should be able to say that if it
    > relinquishes the processor for now, MAX_LATENCY nanoseconds (or ticks or
    > whatever you want to measure time in) later, it will be back in time to meet
    > a deadline.

    Yep, but the more important thing than latency, is to make your
    deadline. Sometimes people forget that and just concentrate on latency.
    But that's another story.

    > As I understand it, real time is all about determinism. But there are several
    > places where we have to focus on determinism to make it all behave as it
    > should.
    > Priority A > B > C
    > If a lower priority task C gets run just because it is the highest in that
    > CPU's run queue while there is a higher priority task B is sleeping while A
    > runs (on a 2 proc system), this is WRONG.

    Argh, terminology is killing us all. For this to be wrong, B isn't
    "sleeping" it's "waiting" while in the run state. "Sleeping" means that
    it's not on the run queue and is just waiting for some event. Which
    would be OK for C to run then. But if B is on the run queue and in the
    the TASK_RUNNING state, it would be wrong for C to be running somewhere
    where B could be running.

    > But then again, we need to make
    > sure that we can determine the maximum latency to preempt C to run B and try
    > to minimize that.

    And here I don't know of another way besides an IPI to preempt C. If C
    is in userspace, how would you preempt C right a way if B suddenly wakes
    up on the runqueue of A?

    > Poof! More smoke in the air. I hope that clears it up.

    It's as clear as my face was in High School ;)

    -- Steve

    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 06:53    [W:0.026 / U:65.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site