Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756235Ab0KKTbi (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:31:38 -0500 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:52644 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754528Ab0KKTbf (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:31:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 09/22] sched: add period support for -deadline tasks From: Raistlin To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Chris Friesen , oleg@redhat.com, Frederic Weisbecker , Darren Hart , Johan Eker , "p.faure" , linux-kernel , Claudio Scordino , michael trimarchi , Fabio Checconi , Tommaso Cucinotta , Juri Lelli , Nicola Manica , Luca Abeni , Dhaval Giani , Harald Gustafsson , paulmck In-Reply-To: <1289503054.2084.156.camel@laptop> References: <1288333128.8661.137.camel@Palantir> <1288334050.8661.150.camel@Palantir> <1289503054.2084.156.camel@laptop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-H5XB7jjvsaSTvND5EAIH" Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:31:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1289503883.6525.107.camel@Palantir> 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: 2025 Lines: 59 --=-H5XB7jjvsaSTvND5EAIH Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:34 +0200, Raistlin wrote: > > Make it possible to specify a period (different or equal than > > deadline) for -deadline tasks. > >=20 > I would expect it to be: >=20 > runtime <=3D deadline <=3D period >=20 Well, apart from that really unhappy comment/changelog, it should be like that in the code, and if it's not, it is what I meant and I'll change to that as soon as I can! :-) Since you spotted it... The biggest issue here is admission control test. Right now this is done against task's bandwidth, i.e., sum_i(runtime_i/period_i)<=3Dthreshold, but it is unfortunately wrong... Or at least very, very loose, to the point of being almost useless! :-( The more correct --in the sense that it at least yield a sufficient (not necessary!) condition-- thing to do would be sum_i(runtime_i/min{deadline_i,period_i})<=3Dthreshold. So, what you think we should do? Can I go for this latter option? Thanks, 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 --=-H5XB7jjvsaSTvND5EAIH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkzcRIsACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQ4dQCfU72e53LUHlOhXXvNah6aJBjc E70AnjdUx25730ZX1KwoLBzGVuKjlzRq =sx+N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-H5XB7jjvsaSTvND5EAIH-- -- 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/