[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090724072826.4c35bc2a@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:28:26 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: sen wang <wangsen.linux@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kernel@...ivas.org,
npiggin@...e.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: report a bug about sched_rt
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:57:35 +0800
sen wang <wangsen.linux@...il.com> wrote:
> I find something is wrong about sched_rt.
>
> when I am debugging my system with rt_bandwidth_enabled, there is a
> running realtime FIFO task in the sched_rt running queue and
> the fair running queue is empty. I found the idle task will be
> scheduled up when the running task still lie in the sched_rt running
> queue!
>
> this will happen when rt runqueue passed it's rt_bandwidth_enabled
> runtime,then the scheduler choose the idle task instead of realtime
> FIFO task.
>
> the reason lie in: when scheduler try to pick up a realtime FIFO task,
> it will check if rt_throttled is enabled,
> if so, it'll return and try fair queue but it is empty, then it come
> to the sched_idle class.
>
> I don't think it reasonable, we should give the realtime FIFO task the
> chance, even when rt runqueue passed it's runtime.
> because it is cpu's free time.
sounds like a good power limiting feature...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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