Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756979Ab0GIOY7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:24:59 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:54201 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755607Ab0GIOY6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:24:58 -0400 Subject: Re: periods and deadlines in SCHED_DEADLINE From: Peter Zijlstra To: Raistlin Cc: linux-kernel , Song Yuan , Dmitry Adamushko , Thomas Gleixner , Nicola Manica , Luca Abeni , Claudio Scordino , Harald Gustafsson , Bjoern Brandenburg , bastoni@cs.unc.edu, Giuseppe Lipari In-Reply-To: <1278682707.6083.227.camel@Palantir> References: <1278682707.6083.227.camel@Palantir> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:24:30 +0200 Message-ID: <1278685470.1900.206.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 757 Lines: 15 On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:38 +0200, Raistlin wrote: > Basically, from the scheduling point of view, what it could happen is > that I'm still _NOT_ going to allow a task with runtime Q_i, deadline > D_i and period P_i to use more bandwidth than Q_i/P_i, I'm still using D > for scheduling but the passing of the simple in-kernel admission test > Sum_i(Q_i/P_i)<1 won't guarantee that the task will always finish its > jobs before D. But the tardiness would still be bounded, right? So its a valid Soft-RT model? -- 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/