On 8/7/20 4:11 PM, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> But I shelved all that after I heard about that other balancer idea
> Danial was suppose to be working on ;-)))
The PhD bureaucracy (and behind the scenes) were blocking me... but I am free
man now and will catch up on that ;-).
[ also because I
On 07/08/20 16:13, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:43:53PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > Right, but I fear we won't be able to keep current behavior for wakeups:
> > RT with highest prio always gets scheduled right away?
>
> If you consider RT throttling, that's already
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:43:53PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Right, but I fear we won't be able to keep current behavior for wakeups:
> RT with highest prio always gets scheduled right away?
If you consider RT throttling, that's already not the case. We can
consider this fair server to be just
On 07/08/20 15:55, luca abeni wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:43:53 +0200
> Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > On 07/08/20 15:28, luca abeni wrote:
> > > Hi Juri,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
> > > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > >
> > > > Starting deadline server for lower priority classes
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:49:41PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> > One thing I considerd was scheduling this as a least-laxity entity --
> > such that it runs late, not early
>
> Are you thinking about scheduling both RT and non-RT tasks through
>
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:43:53 +0200
Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 07/08/20 15:28, luca abeni wrote:
> > Hi Juri,
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
> > Juri Lelli wrote:
> >
> > > Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away
> > > when first task is enqueued might break
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 12:46:18 +0200
pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:56:04AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> > first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as tasks belonging to
> > intermediate
On 07/08/20 15:28, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
> Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> > first task is enqueued might break guarantees
>
> Which guarantees are you thinking about, here? Response
Hi Juri,
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:56:04 +0200
Juri Lelli wrote:
> Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> first task is enqueued might break guarantees
Which guarantees are you thinking about, here? Response times of fixed
priority tasks?
If fixed priority tasks are
On 07/08/20 13:30, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 8/7/20 12:46 PM, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:56:04AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> >> first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as
On 8/7/20 12:46 PM, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:56:04AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
>> first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as tasks belonging to
>> intermediate priority classes could be
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:56:04AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
> first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as tasks belonging to
> intermediate priority classes could be uselessly preempted. E.g., a well
> behaving (non hog)
Starting deadline server for lower priority classes right away when
first task is enqueued might break guarantees, as tasks belonging to
intermediate priority classes could be uselessly preempted. E.g., a well
behaving (non hog) FIFO task can be preempted by NORMAL tasks even if
there are still
13 matches
Mail list logo
