linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/22] sched: add period support for -deadline tasks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:43:55 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc:	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 09/22] sched: add period support for -deadline
 tasks

On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:31 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:34 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > > Make it possible to specify a period (different or equal than
> > > deadline) for -deadline tasks.
> > > 
> > I would expect it to be:
> > 
> > runtime <= deadline <= period
> > 
> Well, apart from that really unhappy comment/changelog, it should be
> like that in the code, and if it's not, it is what I meant and I'll
> change to that as soon as I can! :-)
> 
> Since you spotted it... The biggest issue here is admission control
> test. Right now this is done against task's bandwidth, i.e.,
> sum_i(runtime_i/period_i)<=threshold, but it is unfortunately wrong...
> Or at least very, very loose, to the point of being almost useless! :-(

Right, I have some recollection on that.

> The more correct --in the sense that it at least yield a sufficient (not
> necessary!) condition-- thing to do would be
> sum_i(runtime_i/min{deadline_i,period_i})<=threshold.
> 
> So, what you think we should do? Can I go for this latter option?

I remember we visited this subject last time, but I seem to have
forgotten most details.

So sufficient (but not necessary) means its still a pessimistic approach
but better than the one currently employed, or does it mean its
optimistic and allows for unschedulable sets to be allowed in?

--
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/