On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:59:00AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:01:58 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:50:27AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:37:29 +0800 > > > Lichao Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Active rt throtting will dequeue rt_rq from rq at least 50ms, > > > > When there is no running cfs task, do we still active it? > > > > > > > > > > This is something I would like to have. > > > > > > Peter, what's your thought on this? > > > > I'd love to just delete all of this.. that said, I'm not sure this > > change makes sense, because it doesn't deal sanely with the case where > > the task will appear right after we did this. > > I haven't looked closely at the surrounding code, but wouldn't it get > throttled in the next period? Do we care if a task has to wait a bit > longer?
Either way around, who cares? > > The right thing to do is that fair deadline server thing. > > But we've been saying that for years now. Hey, I even coded most of it, but clearly nobody cares about this enough to finish it ...
