linux-kernel - Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1212616348.19205.29.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:52:27 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	trimarchimichael@...oo.it
Cc:	Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
	Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@....rr.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
	"Derek L. Fults" <dfults@....com>, devik <devik@....cz>,
	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
	Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
	Emmanuel Pacaud <emmanuel.pacaud@...v-poitiers.fr>,
	Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...e.fr>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Matthew Dobson <colpatch@...ibm.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@...l.org>, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may
	have realtime uses)

On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:44 +0000, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> [ sorry if this is going OT ]
>  
> Hi,
>  
> >  
> > Furthermore, cpusets allow for isolated but load-balanced RT domains. We
> > now have a reasonably strong RT balancer, and I'm looking at implementing
> > a full partitioned EDF scheduler somewhere in the future.
> >  
>  
> I'm working on a partitioned EDF scheduler right now, and I have to
> face several issues, starting from the interface to use to expose the
> EDF scheduler to userspace, and the integration with the existing
> sched_rt policy.

I would add a sched_class above sched_rt and let sched_rt run in all
unclaimed time by sched_edf.

Have you looked at deadline inheritance to replace PI? I think it can be
done reasonably simple by replacing the plist with a RB tree.

> By now I'm experimenting with an additional sched_class that implements
> a SCHED_EDF policy, extending the POSIX struct sched_param with the
> EDF parameters of the task, do you see any better way to do that? 
> Could that approach be reasonable?

Yes, that is the way I'm leaning.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/