[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230616115149.GK83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:51:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 6/6] sched/fair: Implement starvation monitor
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 05:58:18PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
>
> Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as tasks belonging to
> intermediate priority classes could be uselessly preempted. E.g., a well
> behaving (non hog) FIFO task can be preempted by NORMAL tasks even if
> there are still CPU cycles available for NORMAL tasks to run, as they'll
> be running inside the fair deadline server for some period of time.
>
> To prevent this issue, implement a starvation monitor mechanism that
Why should this be prevented? FIFO can be preempted by a higher
priority FIFO/RR, or in this case by DEADLINE, and always by stop_task.
Just accept this.
Anything that's build around FIFO-99 not getting preempted is just plain
broken. Don't try and pander to broken.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists