lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server
From
On 11/8/23 13:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Should we rather not cap the runtime, something like so?
>
> Because the above also causes period drift, which we do not want.

like in the example I showed before:

- 3/10 reservation (30%).
- w=waiting
- r=running
- s=sleeping
- T=throttled
- fair server dispatched at 0, starvation from RT.


|wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr|TTTTTTTTTT[...]TTTTTTTTTTT|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr|TTTTTTT
|___________________________period 1_________________________________|_________period 2________________________[...]___________|___period 3____________________|[.... internal-period
0---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6--------7--------8---------9----------10.......11.[...]16.........17........18........19........20|[.... < Real-time
---------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------|
| +new period

From "real-world/wall clock" the internal period shift produces the
"zerolax" timeline. It runs 3 units of time before the 10's.

If one has a mix of DL and FIFO task, and want to enforce
a given response time to the fair server, they can reduce the
fair server period to achieve that.

-- Daniel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-20 13:53    [W:0.129 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site