[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230616120507.GM83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 14:05:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
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>,
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>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 6/6] sched/fair: Implement starvation monitor
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 03:41:30PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> In an 0-laxity scheduler, the server would run at 0-laxity, jumping in
> front of DL tasks... that would break EDF. It would be mixing two
> schedulers in one. It is not required and likely not a good idea either.
I did consider a hybrid 0-laxity and EDF scheduler for mixed
criticality, as have others like Ted Baker IIRC. IIRC it can be done
using an augmented tree, but none of that solves the problems 0-laxity
has (like over preemption and the general problem of playing chicken by
doing things at the *VERY* last possible moment).
I think I did a talk at OSPERT on this at some point many years ago.
Luckily some bright fellow had this semi-partitioned stuff that would
make live much simpler :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists