From: Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Stultz, John" <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: RT task scheduling
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:25:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200604052025.05679.darren@dvhart.com> (raw)
My last mail specifically addresses preempt-rt, but I'd like to know people's
thoughts regarding this issue in the mainline kernel. Please see my previous
post "realtime-preempt scheduling - rt_overload behavior" for a testcase that
produces unpredictable scheduling results.
Part of the issue here is to define what we consider "correct behavior" for
SCHED_FIFO realtime tasks. Do we (A) need to strive for "strict realtime
priority scheduling" where the NR_CPUS highest priority runnable SCHED_FIFO
tasks are _always_ running? Or do we (B) take the best effort approach with
an upper limit RT priority imbalances, where an imbalance may occur (say at
wakeup or exit) but will be remedied within 1 tick. The smpnice patches
improve load balancing, but don't provide (A).
More details in the previous mail...
Thanks,
--Darren
next reply other threads:[~2006-04-06 3:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-06 3:25 Darren Hart [this message]
2006-04-06 4:19 ` RT task scheduling Peter Williams
2006-04-06 17:24 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 23:02 ` Peter Williams
2006-04-06 7:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-06 14:55 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 18:16 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 22:35 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 22:58 ` Vernon Mauery
2006-04-06 23:06 ` Peter Williams
2006-04-07 3:07 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 7:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 8:39 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 9:11 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 9:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 10:39 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 10:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 11:14 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 11:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 22:18 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 14:56 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 21:06 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 22:37 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 23:36 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08 3:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-08 4:28 ` Vernon Mauery
2006-04-08 4:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-08 7:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08 7:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08 7:54 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08 8:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08 10:02 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08 0:11 ` Peter Williams
2006-04-07 9:23 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-09 13:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-09 17:25 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-09 18:31 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200604052025.05679.darren@dvhart.com \
--to=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).