[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161017105250.GP3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:52:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
giuseppe lipari <giuseppe.lipari@....ens-cachan.fr>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Subject: Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 09:34:20PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> first of all, sorry for the delay in my answer
Not a problem, we're all busy. As it happens I had this thing in Berlin
which delayed me reading email in any case ;-)
> > However, I think there's a third alternative. I have memories of a
> > paper from UNC (I'd have to dig through the site to see if I can
> > still find it) where they argue that for a hierarchical (G-)FIFO you
> > should use minimal concurrency, that is run the minimal number of
> > (v)cpu servers.
> Ok, I need to find and read that paper
I had a real quick look and it could be this one, but memories are
vague...
https://cs.unc.edu/~anderson/papers/ecrts08c.pdf
In particular 3.P.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists