Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757555Ab0KLNeJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:34:09 -0500 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:46035 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751730Ab0KLNeH (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:34:07 -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: <1289504635.2084.179.camel@laptop> References: <1288333128.8661.137.camel@Palantir> <1288334050.8661.150.camel@Palantir> <1289503054.2084.156.camel@laptop> <1289503883.6525.107.camel@Palantir> <1289504635.2084.179.camel@laptop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lc4TVFVlA0IWkdLQOPqE" Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:33:47 +0100 Message-ID: <1289568827.6525.411.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: 2764 Lines: 74 --=-lc4TVFVlA0IWkdLQOPqE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 20:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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! :-( >=20 > Right, I have some recollection on that. >=20 :-) > So sufficient (but not necessary) means its still a pessimistic approach > but better than the one currently employed, or does it mean its > optimistic and allows for unschedulable sets to be allowed in? >=20 Tommaso already gave the best possible explanation of this! :-P So, trying to recap: - using runtime/min(deadline,period) _does_ guarantee schedulability, but also rejects schedulable situations in UP/partitioning. Quite sure it _does_not_ guarantee schedulability in SMP/global, but *should* enable bounded tardiness; - using runtime/period _does_not_ guarantee schedulability nor in UP/partitioning neither in SMP/global, but *should* enable bounded tardiness for _both_. The *should*-s come from the fact that I feel like I read it somewhere, but right now I can't find the paper(s), not even following the references indicated by Bjorn and Jim in previous e-mails and threads (i.e., I can't find anything _explicitly_ considering deadline!=3Dperiod, but it might be my fault)... :-( Thus, all this being said, what do you want me to do? :-D Since we care about bounded tardiness more than 100%-guaranteed schedulability (which, BTW, neither min{} could give us, at least for SMPs), should we stay with runtime/period? Tommaso, Luca, do you think it would be so bad? Thanks and 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 --=-lc4TVFVlA0IWkdLQOPqE 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) iEYEABECAAYFAkzdQjsACgkQk4XaBE3IOsRcoQCfSm4lp9t+FZeg2z4q3VOT4iNk jM8An2VMZMw4FyPu/n9PigDTwRMj1ats =+apZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lc4TVFVlA0IWkdLQOPqE-- -- 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/