Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:39:19 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [sched-devel, patch-rfc] rework of "prioritize non-migratabletasks over migratable ones" |
| |
* Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, in message > <1213643862.16944.142.camel@twins>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:59 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > > >> One way or another, we have different aritifacts (and mine have likely > >> more) but conceptually, both "violates" POSIX if a strict round-robin > >> scheduling is required. > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#t > > ag_02_08_04_01 > > > > Is quite strict on what FIFO should do, and I know of two points where > > we deviate and should work to match. > > Thanks for the link, Peter. When you read that, its pretty clear that > this whole concept violates the standard. Its probably best to just > revert the patch and be done with it.
no, there's no spec violation here - the spec is silent on SMP issues.
the spec should not be read to force a global runqueue for RT tasks. That would be silly beyond imagination.
so ... lets apply Dmitry's nice simplification, hm?
Ingo
| |