On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:36:07 +0100
Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
> On 15/02/2017 14:33, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > [1] For the sake of completeness:
> > - dl_se->deadline = Absolute deadline
> > - dl_se->dl_deadline = Relative deadline
> Daniel's note [1] reminds me that, would it be wort
On 15/02/2017 14:33, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
[1] For the sake of completeness:
- dl_se->deadline = Absolute deadline
- dl_se->dl_deadline = Relative deadline
Daniel's note [1] reminds me that, would it be worth a rename of these, for the
sake of clarity, e.g.:
-) abs_deadline vs rel_d
On 15/02/17 14:33, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 01:59 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Actually, another thing that we noticed, talking on IRC with Peter, is
> > that we seem to be replenishing differently on different occasions:
>
> When a task is awakened (not by the replenishment
On 15/02/17 14:13, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:59:25 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > On 15/02/17 13:31, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > Hi Juri,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +
> > > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can r
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:42:42 +0100
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 02:33 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > dl_se->deadline = dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period;
>
> ops, it should be:
>
> dl_se->deadline = dl_se->deadline + pi_se->dl_period;
or
dl_se->deadline +=
On 02/15/2017 02:33 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> dl_se->deadline = dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period;
ops, it should be:
dl_se->deadline = dl_se->deadline + pi_se->dl_period;
On 02/15/2017 01:59 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Actually, another thing that we noticed, talking on IRC with Peter, is
> that we seem to be replenishing differently on different occasions:
When a task is awakened (not by the replenishment timer), it is not
possible to know if the absolute deadline var
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:59:25 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 15/02/17 13:31, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Juri,
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +
> > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can result in a task
> > > > consuming more than the reserved
On 15/02/17 13:31, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can result in a task
> > > consuming more than the reserved utilisation. I still need some
> > > time to convince me that "runtime /
Hi Juri,
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:29:19 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > Ok, thanks; I think I can now see why this can result in a task
> > consuming more than the reserved utilisation. I still need some
> > time to convince me that "runtime / (deadline - t) > dl_runtime /
> > dl_deadline" is the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:29:19AM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> that we then dediced not to propose since (note that these are just my
> memories of the dicussion, so everything it's up for further discussion,
> also in light of the problem highlighted by Daniel)
>
> - SCHED_DEADLINE, as the docum
Hi,
On 15/02/17 08:40, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:14:17 -0500
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [...]
> > > I am not sure about the correct fix (wouldn't
> > > "runtime / (deadline - t) > dl_runtime / dl_deadline" allow the
> > > task to use a fraction of CPU time equal to
Hi Steven,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:14:17 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
> > I am not sure about the correct fix (wouldn't
> > "runtime / (deadline - t) > dl_runtime / dl_deadline" allow the
> > task to use a fraction of CPU time equal to dl_runtime /
> > dl_deadline?)
> >
> > The current code
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:49:26 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:28:48 -0500
> "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" wrote:
>
> > I was testing Daniel's changes with his test case, and tweaked it a
> > little. Instead of having the runtime equal to the deadline, I
> > increased
Hi Steven,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:28:48 -0500
"Steven Rostedt (VMware)" wrote:
> I was testing Daniel's changes with his test case, and tweaked it a
> little. Instead of having the runtime equal to the deadline, I
> increased the deadline ten fold.
>
> Daniel's test case had:
>
> attr.sc
I was testing Daniel's changes with his test case, and tweaked it a
little. Instead of having the runtime equal to the deadline, I
increased the deadline ten fold.
Daniel's test case had:
attr.sched_runtime = 2 * 1000 * 1000; /* 2 ms */
attr.sched_deadline = 2 * 1000 * 1
16 matches
Mail list logo
