[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160115084150.GD3421@worktop>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:41:50 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 7/8] Make GRUB a task's flag
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:15:39AM +0100, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 08:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >Something with an average runtime/budget that also puts limits on the
> >max (say 2*avg) would be far more amenable to be exposed to unpriv
> >tasks, except since that would directly result in an average tardiness
> >bound this might be non-trivial to combine with tasks not opting for
> >this.
> I'll try to think about this... The advantage of GRUB is that a theoretically
> sound algorithm already existed; here, we would need to design the algorithm
> so that it does not break the SCHED_DEADLINE guarantees. Anyway, this is an
> interesting challenge, I'll work on it :)
Didn't Baruah and Jim do the whole theory on statistical EDF? Which
shows that if you use a statistical budget the combined distribution
transfers to the tardiness. With stdev=0 for the budgets this trivially
collapses to the regular EDF, since then the combined distribution is
also stdev=0 and you get 0 tardiness (on UP).
But yes, combining the two into one scheduler is 'interesting'. I was
thinking it would be possible with least-laxity-first, since you can
assign the hard (stdev=0) tasks a tighter laxity bound.
But LLF is horrendously painful to implement IIRC.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists