[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1278685133.1900.201.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:18:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Yuan <song.yuan@...csson.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
Luca Abeni <lucabe72@...il.it>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Harald Gustafsson <harald.gustafsson@...csson.com>,
Bjoern Brandenburg <bbb@...il.unc.edu>, bastoni@...unc.edu,
Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@...is.sssup.it>
Subject: Re: periods and deadlines in SCHED_DEADLINE
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:38 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> - using periods for calculating the tasks' bandwidth and then using
> deadlines for scheduling the tasks is going to work, but the
> admission control test that you would need for ensuring anybody
> will make its deadline is waaay more complex than Sum_i(BW_i)<1, even
> for uniprocessors/partitionig. That one instead would gives you just
> a very basic guarantee that the design in not completely broken
> (formally, I think I should say it is only a necessary
> condition :-)).
Happen to have a paper handy that explains all this in a concise way?
--
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