Gregory Haskins wrote:
btw., both cases would be addressed by placing load-balance points
into sched_class_rt->{enqueue,dequeue}_task_rt()... push_rt_tasks()
and pull_rt_tasks() respectively. As a side effect (I think,
technically, it would be possible), 3 out of 4 *_balance_rt() calls
(the excep
Hi Dmitry,
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2007 at 12:16 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dmitry
Adamushko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ cc'ed lkml ]
>
> I guess, one possible load-balancing point is out of consideration --
> sched_setscheduler()
> (also rt_mutex_setprio()).
>
> (1) NORMAL --> RT, wh
[ cc'ed lkml ]
I guess, one possible load-balancing point is out of consideration --
sched_setscheduler()
(also rt_mutex_setprio()).
(1) NORMAL --> RT, when p->se.on_rq == 1 && ! task_running(rq, p)
(2) RT --> NORMAL, when task_running(rq, p) == 1
e.g. for (2) we may even get a completely idle
3 matches
Mail list logo