lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [sched-devel, patch-rfc] rework of "prioritize non-migratabletasks over migratable ones"
From
Date
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 12:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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.

Sadly, some people do read it like that.

> so ... lets apply Dmitry's nice simplification, hm?

As long as it doesn't wreck the per RQ queue model and only affects the
SMP interaction that would be acceptable I guess.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-18 12:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans