[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDB2340.2060501@sssup.it>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:57:04 +0100
From: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>
To: Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Johan Eker <johan.eker@...csson.com>,
"p.faure" <p.faure@...tech.ch>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
michael trimarchi <trimarchi@...is.sssup.it>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@...up.it>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface
Il 10/11/2010 23:17, Raistlin ha scritto:
>> I would suggest we add at least one more field so we can implement the
>> stochastic model from UNC, sched_runtime_dev or sched_runtime_var or
>> somesuch.
> Do we need some further mechanism to grant its
> extendability?
> Padding?
> Versioning?
> void *data field?
> Whatever?
This is a key point. Let me copy text from a slide of my LPC main-conf talk:
Warning: features & parameters may easily grow
- Addition of parameters, such as
- deadline
- desired vs guaranteed runtime (for adaptive reservations &
controlled overcommitment)
- Set of flags for controlling variations on behavior
- work conserving vs non-conserving reservations
- what happens at fork() time
- what happens on tasks death (automatic reclamation)
- notifications from kernel (e.g., runtime exhaustion)
- Controlled access to RT scheduling by unprivileged
applications (e.g., per-user “quotas”)
- Monitoring (e.g., residual runtime, available bandwidth)
- Integration/interaction with power management
(e.g., spec of per-cpu-frequency budget)
How can we guarantee extensibility (or replacement) of parameters in the
future ?
What about something like _attr_*() in POSIX-like interfaces ?
T.
--
Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineering PhD, Researcher
ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
Tel +39 050 882 024, Fax +39 050 882 003
http://retis.sssup.it/people/tommaso
--
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