[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298439118.7856.80.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:31:58 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, richard.purdie@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: allow SCHED_BATCH to preempt SCHED_IDLE
tasks
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 05:20 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 13:04 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> > Perform the test for SCHED_IDLE before testing for SCHED_BATCH (and ensure idle
> > tasks don't preempt idle tasks) so the non-interactive, but still important,
> > SCHED_BATCH tasks will run in favor of the very low priority SCHED_IDLE tasks.
>
> Yeah, that could be construed as a fairness fix for light SCHED_BATCH vs
> a heavy SCHED_IDLE. It should lower latencies for both when mixed.
Hm. Seems SCHED_IDLE _always_ being preempted is a potential terminal
starvation bug though, unless preempt_tick() checks spread to guarantee
that the preempted task will eventually get the CPU back, even in the
face of massive non-idle wakeup driven load.. which it does not. (idle
task holds resource?)
Maybe my imagination has had too much java though.
-Mike
--
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