[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110094730.GC5255@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:47:32 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf/core: Small event scheduling changes
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:41:45AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> With this draft, it makes the pinned priority more consistent
> with its purpose but it doesn't yet bring the full pinned over
> flexible priority determinism.
>
> It does apply the priority in tick time, while we round robin.
> I did that there first so that it covers most of the events
> rescheduling actions and also it doesn't bring much more
> overhead over the previous layout (in theory), it just changes
> the order.
>
> I'll also try to expand the priority constraint each time we
> sched in a task: when we schedule a new task that belongs to
> a new context, we don't schedule out/in the cpu context but
> that will be needed if we want the full priority determinism.
To lower the overhead at non-tick time, we could even just reschedule
the cpu flexible events. Anyway...
>
> Anyway, I'll do that progressively.
>
> Frederic.
>
--
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