[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200807134353.GR42956@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:43:53 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@...il.com,
bristot@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
williams@...hat.com, valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] sched/fair: Implement starvation monitor
On 07/08/20 15:28, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> > first task is enqueued might break guarantees
>
> Which guarantees are you thinking about, here? Response times of fixed
> priority tasks?
Response time, but also wakeup latency (which, for better or worse, is
another important metric).
> If fixed priority tasks are also scheduled through deadline servers,
> then you can provide response-time guarantees to them even when
> lower-priority/non-real-time tasks are scheduled through deadline
> servers.
Right, but I fear we won't be able to keep current behavior for wakeups:
RT with highest prio always gets scheduled right away?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists