[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317196975.5781.15.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:02:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, arve@...roid.com,
markgross@...gnar.org, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, farrowg@...ibm.com,
"Dmitry Fink (Palm GBU)" <Dmitry.Fink@...m.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, khilman@...com,
Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>, mjg@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea.
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:57 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 09:51:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > SCHED_FIFO is an utter trainwreck, you're talking to the guy who gave a
> > conference talk on why SCHED_FIFO sucks.
>
> That sounds interesting. Do you have a link to the paper and/or
> presentation?
Not really, I'm also the guy who doesn't write papers and has minimal
slides (and has lost those he had).
But the gist is that SCHED_FIFO doesn't provide proper resource control:
its possible to overload the system, nor does it provide proper resource
isolation: (like already stated) its impossible to fold two properly
working RT systems onto one machine and still have them work correctly
(even when the combined utilization < 1).
--
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