[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1278685800.1900.212.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:30:00 +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:
>
> Therefore, here it is my proposal:
> - if the programmer specify both period and deadline, I act as above,
> running the _only_necessary_ test in the kernel, assuming that
> userspace performed some other kind of (correct!) admission test by
> its own, or that it is cool with missing some deadlines... What do
> you think?
It would be good to provide room in the interface to improve upon this
situation.
One thing we could do, although this would make the proposed scheduler a
wee bit more complex, is split between hard and soft realtime. Only
accept P==rel_D for hard, and schedule the soft tasks in the hard slack
or something like that.
That way we can later extend the hard admission tests to accept more.
--
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