[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 12:24 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > - 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.
I think it's not a problem of A, but of the overall schedule, from a
system predictability perspective.

Anyway, we are still evaluating what, if any could the issues be.

> > - 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?
Mmm.. That's right, but I'm not sure I get what happen while executing
C... Anyway, it seems to me that we are getting closer to each other
point of view... let's keep staying in touch! :-D


<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) / /
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-14 21:17    [W:0.143 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site