Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:24:26 -0600 | From | "Chris Friesen" <> | Subject | Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel |
| |
Raistlin wrote:
> Remember that all my points are concerned with budgets, i.e., a scenario > where you have some mean to limit the capability of a task to ask for > CPU time over some kind of period. > And here it is where the problem comes since running C instead of having > A busy waiting means: > - that A is actually blocked, as said before;
Why does it make any difference that A is blocked rather than busy waiting? In either case A cannot make forward progress.
> - that A's budget is not diminished.
If we're running B with A's priority, presumably it will get some amount of cpu time above and beyond what it would normally have gotten during a particular scheduling interval. Perhaps it would make sense to charge B what it would normally have gotten, and charge the excess amount to A?
Chris
|  |