[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3gwwnJmWTbAVRo50JTgHENriJdEPk+v68W8ns@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:54:04 +0100
From: Harald Gustafsson <hgu1972@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Harald Gustafsson <harald.gustafsson@...csson.com>,
Dario Faggioli <faggioli@...dalf.sssup.it>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added runqueue clock normalized with cpufreq
2010/12/17 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> Also if you want to have your deadline scheduler aware of cpu
> frequency changes, then simply limit the total bandwith based on the
> lowest possible frequency and it works always. This whole dynamic
> bandwith expansion is more an academic exercise than a practical
> necessity.
This would severely limit the bandwidth available to deadline tasks. Which
then also reduces the use cases that could benefit from using sched deadline.
Also it would imply a over-reservation of the system, e.g. if you need 10%
BW of the total system and the lowest speed is at 20%, you basically need to
set a BW of 50%, to always be guaranteed that you get your 10% when cpufreq
clocks down. If you use cpufreq and want to use sched deadline this has
strong practical implications and is definitely not academic only.
--
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