Subject: Re: report a bug about sched_rt
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: sen wang <wangsen.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kernel@kolivas.org,
       npiggin@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org,
       linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <454c71700907240807t5b682e7cv52534f41d3be961a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <454c71700907240357l61f5c4fajaca73db0fba7db8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248437670.6987.26.camel@twins>
	 <454c71700907240604h4673f117j8ed58b9f2ee54798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248441290.6987.52.camel@twins>
	 <454c71700907240626w127fd890ufa91ef90cbcaaa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248442415.6987.56.camel@twins>
	 <454c71700907240644h7469e2a5sfcb57f202a2e184d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248443656.6987.61.camel@twins>
	 <454c71700907240704o32dcdeb3v57845eb9472dd04c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1248446909.6987.110.camel@twins>
	 <454c71700907240807t5b682e7cv52534f41d3be961a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:24:30 +0200
Message-Id: <1248449070.6987.126.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2028
Lines: 52

On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 23:07 +0800, sen wang wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 22:04 +0800, sen wang wrote:
> >
> >> just one question:
> >> if cpu is free and there is running state task, how you do?
> >> schedule the task up? or schedule idle task up?
> >
> > Well, when an RT group is over the bandwidth limit I don't consider them
> > runnable. Therefore, failing to find any other tasks, we run the idle
> > task.
> >
> 
> you havn't anwser the question: if cpu is free, should we  schedule the
> running state task or idle task?

It it not runnable because the group is over its limit.

> face the error and fix it! ok?

Please tone down and re-read the explanations I gave.

The throttle is an H-CBS services for RT task groups, meant to provide
isolation through a fixed resource guarantee.

Any process actually hitting the throttle means a miss configured system
-- unless its a temporary overload and you're able to deal with those.

The single group case is simply the trivial case thereof.

Your proposed change does not generalize to such a framework, and while
it might work with the current code, it doesn't serve a use-case
considered in this architecture and will render the interface
inconsistent.

Furthermore, future work in this area will not be able to support your
changed semantics in a sane fashion.

I've yet to see any coherent explanation of your problem, and quite
frankly I find your attitude offensive.

As you say, Linux is an open-source effort, and you're free to do with
your copy as you see fit (provided you stick to the rules stipulated by
the GPLv2). However as co-maintainer of the mainline scheduler I see no
reason to entertain your change, nor for that matter to continue this
discussion.

--
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/