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]

Message-ID: <1289569533.2084.258.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:45:33 +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 Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:33 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> :-)
> 
> > 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?
> > 
> Tommaso already gave the best possible explanation of this! :-P
> 
> So, trying to recap:
>  - using runtime/min(deadline,period) _does_ guarantee schedulability,
>    but also rejects schedulable situations in UP/partitioning. Quite
>    sure it _does_not_ guarantee schedulability in SMP/global, but
>    *should* enable bounded tardiness;
>  - using runtime/period _does_not_ guarantee schedulability nor in
>    UP/partitioning neither in SMP/global, but *should* enable bounded
>    tardiness for _both_.

> Thus, all this being said, what do you want me to do? :-D

runtime/min(deadline,period) sounds fine, as its more useful than
runtime/period.
--
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/