Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756050AbZGNTOl (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:14:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756027AbZGNTOk (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:14:40 -0400 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:56112 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755452AbZGNTOj (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:14:39 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel From: Raistlin To: Chris Friesen Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Douglas Niehaus , Henrik Austad , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Bill Huey , Linux RT , Fabio Checconi , "James H. Anderson" , Thomas Gleixner , Ted Baker , Dhaval Giani , Noah Watkins , KUSP Google Group , Tommaso Cucinotta , Giuseppe Lipari In-Reply-To: <4A5CCD5A.80108@nortel.com> References: <200907102350.47124.henrik@austad.us> <1247336891.9978.32.camel@laptop> <4A594D2D.3080101@ittc.ku.edu> <1247412708.6704.105.camel@laptop> <1247499843.8107.548.camel@Palantir> <4A5B61DF.8090101@nortel.com> <1247568455.9086.115.camel@Palantir> <4A5C9ABA.9070909@nortel.com> <1247590112.9086.936.camel@Palantir> <4A5CCD5A.80108@nortel.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-MRo2C8k7mHoqG/cwkZ/l" Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:14:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1247598852.4839.99.camel@Palantir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1998 Lines: 61 --=-MRo2C8k7mHoqG/cwkZ/l Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 12:24 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > > - that A is actually blocked, as said before; >=20 > Why does it make any difference that A is blocked rather than busy > waiting? In either case A cannot make forward progress. >=20 I think it's not a problem of A, but of the overall schedule, from a system predictability perspective. Anyway, we are still evaluating what, if any could the issues be. > > - that A's budget is not diminished. >=20 > If we're running B with A's priority, presumably it will get some amount > of cpu time above and beyond what it would normally have gotten during a > particular scheduling interval. =20 > Right... > Perhaps it would make sense to charge B > what it would normally have gotten, and charge the excess amount to A? >=20 Mmm.. That's right, but I'm not sure I get what happen while executing C... Anyway, it seems to me that we are getting closer to each other point of view... let's keep staying in touch! :-D Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net / dario.faggioli@jabber.org --=-MRo2C8k7mHoqG/cwkZ/l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkpc2QQACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQuAgCeIb3kMjLV+nBcJuOGBXramc6y ISoAni/i533oEpgsZvJF/JYgNkBsgNHG =D2j6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-MRo2C8k7mHoqG/cwkZ/l-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/