[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161107123931.2ddccc4d@tagon>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:39:31 -0600
From: Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: RT_RUNTIME_GREED sched feature
On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:30:46 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:22:21 -0600
> Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm still reviewing the patch, but I have to wonder why bother with making it a scheduler feature?
> >
> > The SCHED_FIFO definition allows a fifo thread to starve others
> > because a fifo task will run until it yields. Throttling was added as
> > a safety valve to allow starved SCHED_OTHER tasks to get some cpu
> > time. Adding this unconditionally gets us a safety valve for
> > throttling a badly written fifo task, but allows the fifo task to
> > continue to consume cpu cycles if it's not starving anyone.
> >
> > Or am I missing something that's blazingly obvious?
>
> Or I say make it the default. If people want the old behavior, they can
> modify SCHED_FEATURES to do so.
>
Ok, I can see wanting the previous behavior.
Clark
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists