lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: periods and deadlines in SCHED_DEADLINE
From
Date

On Jul 10, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Raistlin wrote:

>>
>> What are the exact semantics of this extra proposed syscall?
>>
> Right now, it is:
> task_wait_interval(t) --> "wake me up at the first instant after t when
> you can give me my full runtime"
>
>> What exactly are the benefits over not having it, and simply rely on the
>> task to not wake up more often, but if it does have it run into the lack
>> of budget and sort it that way?
>>
> What you're saying obviously will always work, and it is actually a
> quite common usage pattern (we use it like that a lot! :-)).
>
> The new syscall might help when it is important for a task to
> synchronize with the budget provisioning mechanism. It might be
> uncommon, but there could be situations --more in hard than in soft
> scenarios-- where you want to be sure that you're next job (and all the
> subsequent ones, if you behave well) will get its full runtime, even if
> this means waiting a little bit.

Isn't this basically sched_yield? Don't run me now, give lower-priority work a chance to complete, let me run again when my budget is replenished.

Otherwise, what are the semantics of sched_yield under EDF? Cycle through equal-deadline jobs? Given sporadic task activations, this is probably not very useful.

- Björn

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-11 08:19    [W:0.094 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site