Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1498234
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE |
| Date | 2016-10-10 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqGD0-wr-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sqsgF-8mw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sqFQB-8tb-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:15:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > However, I think there's a third alternative. I have memories of a paper > from UNC (I'd have to dig through the site to see if I can still find > it) where they argue that for a hierarchical (G-)FIFO you should use > minimal concurrency, that is run the minimal number of (v)cpu servers. > > This would mean we give a single CBS parameter and carve out the minimal > number (of max CBS) (v)cpu that fit in that. > > I'm just not sure how the random affinity crap works out for that, if we > have the (v)cpu servers migratable in the G-EDF and migrate to whatever > is demanded by the task at runtime it might work, but who knows.. > Analysis would be needed I think. Hurm,.. thinking slightly more on this, this ends up being a DL task with random affinity, which is problematic IIRC.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> - 2016-10-09 21:50 +0200
Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-10 12:20 +0200
Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-10 13:10 +0200
Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-10 14:10 +0200
csiph-web