[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimynA+wdsEwayzdDZRTPeZHRoDtgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:33:19 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: remove starvation in check_preempt_equal_prio()
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 22:01 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 21:34 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> >> If there are pushable tasks and they are high enough in priority, in which
>> >> case task p is covered, the current could keep holding its CPU.
>> >
>> > -ENOPARSE..
>> >
>>
>> Here the priority is same, then pushing task p off has little difference from
>> pushing any other pushable.
>
> If task p is currently running and is a FIFO task, you do not push it
> off for another task of same prio.
>
If it is one of the current principles in RT schedule, the patch has
to be dropped.
thanks
Hillf
--
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