Message-ID: <4CE18895.8060101@unitn.it>
Date:	Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:23:01 +0100
From:	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:	"James H. Anderson" <anderson@...unc.edu>
CC:	Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>,
	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>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...is.sssup.it>,
	Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>,
	paulmck <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Bjoern Brandenburg <bbb@...il.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 18/22] sched: add reclaiming logic to -deadline tasks

Hi James,

On 15/11/10 19:37, James H. Anderson wrote:
[...]
>>> The problem the stochastic execution time model tries to address is the
>>> WCET computation mess, WCET computation is hard and often overly
>>> pessimistic, resulting in under-utilized systems.
>>>
>> I know, and it's very reasonable. The point I'm trying to make is that
>> resource reservation tries to address the very same issue.
>> I am all but against this model, just want to be sure it's not too much
>> in conflict to the other features we have, especially with resource
>> reservation. Especially considering that --if I got the whole thing
>> about this scheduler right-- resource reservation is something we really
>> want, and I think UNC people would agree here, since I heard Bjorn
>> stating this very clear both in Dresden and in Dublin. :-)
>>
>> BTW, I'm adding them to the Cc, seems fair, and more useful than all
>> this speculation! :-P
>>
>> Bjorn, Jim, sorry for bothering. If you're interested, this is the very
>> beginning of the whole thread:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/29/67
[...]
> If you're talking about our most recent "stochastic" paper, it is about
> supporting
> soft real-time task systems on a multiprocessor where resource
> reservations are
> used. The main result of the paper is that if you provision the
> reservation for a
> task slightly higher than it's average-case execution time, and if you
> use a
> scheduling algorithm (like global EDF) that ensures bounded tardiness
> (w.r.t.
> these reservations), then the task's expected tardiness will be bounded
> and the
> expected bound does not depend on worst-case execution times. I'm not
> sure if
> slack-reallocation methods have come up in this discussion (sorry, I'm
> really
> pressed for time and didn't look), but we didn't get into that in our
> paper.
So, if I understand well (sorry, I am just trying to make a short 
summary to check if we are aligned) your analysis is similar to the one 
presented in the papers I mentioned earlier in this thread (different 
stochastic modelling, but similar approach): you analyse a reservation 
in isolation and you provide some stochastic tardiness guarantees based 
on an (e_i, p_i) service model.... Right?

If my understanding is correct (please, correct me if I am wrong), your 
analysis can be applied even with the current version of Dario's patch 
(I mean: no modifications to the patch are needed for removing 
assumptions about WCET knowledge... Your paper uses a sporadic server 
for the reservation mechanism, but I think a CBS can work too...).


			Thanks,
				Luca
--
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