Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:46:27 +0100 | From | Paolo Ciarrocchi <> | Subject | Re: Trying out SCHED_BATCH |
| |
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:28:35 +1100, Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote: > Maciej Soltysiak wrote: > > Hi > > > > Con wrote: > > > >> Only the staircase scheduler currently has an implementation of > >> sched_batch and you need 2 more patches on top of the staircase patch > >> for it to work. > > > > Hmm, Is it feasable to write a sched_batch policy for the current linux > > schedulers? > > Yes. > > The proper way to make a sched_batch implementation is more > comprehensive than what is made for staircase to prevent a deadlock > based on a batch task getting an important lock in the kernel and not > being able to release it due to a sched_normal task being higher > priority than it that is actually trying to get the lock. There is code > in the staircase version to prevent this from happening but probably not > complete enough in design to prevent everything. However it works and I > haven't had any reports of lockups since I implemented the extra checking. > > Would you like me to create a version like that? I don't have the time > to try and make a more comprehensive solution and follow the debugging > of such a beast. > > > I mean, if there are people that want it bad, maybe it would be nice to > > be able > > to use a version of sched_batch that would work without the staircase > > scheduler. > > It is still experimental, right? > > No it's not experimental. It is very stable and used in production systems.
Are you gointo to push to Linus/Andrew ?
-- Paolo - 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/
| |