From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S964773AbWDGLcc@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S964773AbWDGLcc (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 7 Apr 2006 07:32:32 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932431AbWDGLcc
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 7 Apr 2006 07:32:32 -0400
Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:26332 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932324AbWDGLcc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 7 Apr 2006 07:32:32 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 13:29:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       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: Re: RT task scheduling
Message-ID: <20060407112956.GA17277@elte.hu>
References: <200604052025.05679.darren@dvhart.com> <20060406073753.GA18349@elte.hu> <20060407030713.GA9623@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20060407071125.GA2563@elte.hu> <20060407083931.GA11393@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20060407091946.GA28421@elte.hu> <20060407103926.GC11706@gnuppy.monkey.org> <20060407105141.GA9972@elte.hu> <20060407111444.GA12458@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060407111444.GA12458@gnuppy.monkey.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3
	0.0 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

> > >>> You should consider for a moment to allow for the binding of a 
> > >>> thread to a CPU to determine the behavior of a SCHED_FIFO class task 
> > >>> instead of creating a new run category. [...]
> > 
> > with the observation that 1) binding is already possible [so your 
> > suggestion is apparently knocking on open doors] 2) binding is a 
> > separate mechanism (not adequate for all workloads) and it is thus 
> > orthogonal to what i'm trying to achieve with the "RT overload" stuff.  
> > Really simple and straightforward observations i think.

> First thing's first, SCHED_FIFO_GLOBAL for what you want in the main 
> line is the same thing as SCHED_FIFO in -rt, right ?

yes.

	Ingo