[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A5F2423.10802@cs.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:59:15 -0400
From: "James H. Anderson" <anderson@...unc.edu>
To: Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ted Baker <baker@...fsu.edu>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>,
Noah Watkins <jayhawk@....ucsc.edu>,
Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...c.ku.edu>,
Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
Linux RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
KUSP Google Group <kusp@...glegroups.com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@...is.sssup.it>,
"Bjoern B. Brandenburg" <bbb@...il.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel
Raistlin wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure I can find in the FMLP paper information about the
> possibility of a task to suspend itself (e.g., I/O completion) while
> holding a short lock... I assume this is not recommended, but may be
> wrong, and, in that case, I hope Prof. Anderson and Bjorn will excuse
> and correct me. :-)
>
>
This is a really excellent point and something I probably should have
mentioned. We developed the FMLP strictly for real-time (only)
workloads. We were specifically looking at protecting memory-resident
resources (not I/O). The FMLP would have to be significantly extended
to work in settings where these assumptions don't hold.
Thanks for pointing this out.
-Jim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists