Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:52:03 -0600 | From | "Gregory Haskins" <> | Subject | Re: [sched-devel, patch-rfc] rework of "prioritizenon-migratabletasks over migratable ones" |
| |
>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:39 AM, in message <20080618103919.GH15255@elte.hu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM, in message >> <1213643862.16944.142.camel@twins>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> >> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:59 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> > >> >> One way or another, we have different aritifacts (and mine have likely >> >> more) but conceptually, both "violates" POSIX if a strict round-robin >> >> scheduling is required. >> > >> > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#t >> > ag_02_08_04_01 >> > >> > Is quite strict on what FIFO should do, and I know of two points where >> > we deviate and should work to match. >> >> Thanks for the link, Peter. When you read that, its pretty clear that >> this whole concept violates the standard. Its probably best to just >> revert the patch and be done with it. > > no, there's no spec violation here - the spec is silent on SMP issues. > > the spec should not be read to force a global runqueue for RT tasks. > That would be silly beyond imagination. > > so ... lets apply Dmitry's nice simplification, hm?
Hmm...I guess that is a good way to look at it. Sounds good, thanks!
Perhaps I will write up a patch against his that fixes that suboptimal detection problem that he highlighted, afterall
Thanks, -Greg
| |