linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 18/22] sched: add reclaiming logic to -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: <1289682496.6491.550.camel@Palantir>
Date:	Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:08:16 +0100
From:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>, 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>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 18/22] sched: add reclaiming logic to -deadline
 tasks

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > BTW, sorry for the shameless plug, but even with the current 
> > SCHED_DEADLINE you are not forced to dimension the runtime using the 
> > WCET. 
> 
> Yes you are, it pushes the deadline back on overrun. The idea it to
> maintain the deadline despite overrunning your budget (up to a point).
> 
BTW, although I share most of Luca's and Tommaso's viewpoints,
triggering bandwidth enforcement at runtime+something instead than just
at runtime doesn't look all that bad, and should fit nicely in what we
have now, without much twisting.

It's just another way to interpret the runtime, and it seems feasible
(or at least plan-able as future feature! :-P) to me... Actually this
was exactly what I was asking and what I wanted to know. :-)

Thanks,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@...ga.net /
dario.faggioli@...ber.org

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)