Google luky.org euqset.org

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM


Paul Davis wrote:
its a fine answer, but its the answer to a slightly different
question. if anyone (maybe us audio freaks, maybe someone else) comes
up with a reason to want "The Real SCHED_FIFO", the original question
will have gone unanswered.

Ah then you missed something. You can set the max cpu of SCHED_ISO to 100% and then you have it.


true, i missed that :) but i also recall you saying you were thinking
of having no prioritization within SCHED_ISO ... or am i remembering
wrong?

Nothing is set in stone. I wont even look at code until Ingo or Linus rules on this. Ingo has expressed interest in SCHED_ISO on a previous thread with me.


also, is it just me, or having to ways to achieve the exact
same result seems very un-linux-like ... and if they are not exact
same results, how does a regular user get the SCHED_FIFO ones? is the
answer just "they don't" ?

To answer your question, the second of my proposals was to not have a separate scheduling class at all. To let normal users set SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR, possibly with all their priorities intact, but for there to be limits placed on their usage of these classes. The reason I suggested not supporting priorities is that proper real time scheduling would entail being able to say "I need x cycles, to complete by y time and I can or cannot be preempted". With these QoS requirements, a whole new scheduling style (EDF) would need to be implemented. Without actually implementing this, if you set a limit of cpu to 70%, all it takes is one FIFO process to run long enough at high enough priority and all your other soft real time tasks go to SCHED_NORMAL, which is nothing like what happens with true RT scheduling. Forcing all soft RT threads to round robin at the same priority would make them sort themselves out. It's a compromise either way, and in fact this latter way is what OSX does and works well in practice as well as theory.


Cheers,
Con

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


$B$3$N>pJs$,$"$J$?$NC5$7$F$$?$b$N$+$I$&$+A*Br$7$F$/$@$5$!#(B
yes/$B$^$5$K$3$l$@!*(B   no/$B0c$&$J$!(B   part/$B0lIt8+$D$+$C$?(B   try/$B$3$l$G;n$7$F$_$k(B

$B$"$J$?$,C5$7$F$$?>pJs$O$I$N$h$&$J$3$H$+!"$4<+M3$K5-F~2<$5$!#FC$K!V$^$5$K$3$l$@!*!W$H8@$&>l9g$O5-F~$r$*4j$$7$^$9!#(B
$BNc(B:$B!VJ#?t$N%^%7%s$+$i(BCATV$B7PM3$G(Bipmasquerade$B$rMxMQ$7$F(BWeb$B$r;2>H$7$?$>l9g$N@_Dj$K$D$$F!W(B
Follow-Ups: References: