Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:43:53 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@gmail.com,
        bristot@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com,
        williams@redhat.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] sched/fair: Implement starvation monitor
Message-ID: <20200807134353.GR42956@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20200807095051.385985-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20200807095604.GO42956@localhost.localdomain>
 <20200807152832.591f462e@nowhere>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200807152832.591f462e@nowhere>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 07/08/20 15:28, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
> 
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.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?