All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Vernon Mauery <vernux@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Stultz, John" <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: RT task scheduling
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:45:49 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1144471549.21670.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200604072128.36868.vernux@us.ibm.com>

Hi Vernon,


On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 21:28 -0700, Vernon Mauery wrote:

> 1) Deterministic scheduling algorithms (SWSRPS).  Basically, with uniprocessor 
> systems (or smp with a global run queue), it was really easy to say, run the 
> highest priority task in the queue.  But when there are several queues that 
> are independent of each other, it is difficult.  According to SWSRPS, nr_cpus 
> highest priority runnable tasks should _always_ be running (regardless of 
> which queue they are on).  This might mean that there are longer latencies a) 
> to determine the nr_cpus highest priority tasks and b) because of cache 
> issues.

Yep, and task cpu dancing.  Everytime a High prio task preempts a lower
prio RT task, that RT task might be pushed to another CPU.

> 
> 2) Maximum deterministic latency.  A task should be able to say that if it 
> relinquishes the processor for now, MAX_LATENCY nanoseconds (or ticks or 
> whatever you want to measure time in) later, it will be back in time to meet 
> a deadline.

Yep, but the more important thing than latency, is to make your
deadline.  Sometimes people forget that and just concentrate on latency.
But that's another story.


> 
> As I understand it, real time is all about determinism.  But there are several 
> places where we have to focus on determinism to make it all behave as it 
> should.
> 
> Priority A > B > C
> If a lower priority task C gets run just because it is the highest in that 
> CPU's run queue while there is a higher priority task B is sleeping while A 
> runs (on a 2 proc system), this is WRONG.

Argh, terminology is killing us all.  For this to be wrong, B isn't
"sleeping" it's "waiting" while in the run state.  "Sleeping" means that
it's not on the run queue and is just waiting for some event.  Which
would be OK for C to run then.  But if B is on the run queue and in the
the TASK_RUNNING state, it would be wrong for C to be running somewhere
where B could be running.

>   But then again, we need to make 
> sure that we can determine the maximum latency to preempt C to run B and try 
> to minimize that.

And here I don't know of another way besides an IPI to preempt C.  If C
is in userspace, how would you preempt C right a way if B suddenly wakes
up on the runqueue of A?

> 
> Poof!  More smoke in the air.  I hope that clears it up.

It's as clear as my face was in High School ;)

-- Steve



  reply	other threads:[~2006-04-08  4:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-04-06  3:25 RT task scheduling Darren Hart
2006-04-06  4:19 ` Peter Williams
2006-04-06 17:24   ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 23:02     ` Peter Williams
2006-04-06  7:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-06 14:55   ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 18:16   ` Darren Hart
2006-04-06 22:35     ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 22:58       ` Vernon Mauery
2006-04-06 23:06   ` Peter Williams
2006-04-07  3:07   ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07  7:11     ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07  8:39       ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07  9:11         ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07  9:19         ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 10:39           ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 10:51             ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 11:14               ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 11:29                 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-07 22:18                   ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 14:56             ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 21:06               ` Bill Huey
2006-04-07 22:37                 ` Darren Hart
2006-04-07 23:36                   ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08  3:01                     ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-08  4:28                       ` Vernon Mauery
2006-04-08  4:45                         ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2006-04-08  7:16                 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08  7:25                   ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08  7:54                     ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08  8:03                       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-08 10:02                         ` Bill Huey
2006-04-08  0:11   ` Peter Williams
2006-04-07  9:23 ` Bill Huey
2006-04-09 13:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-09 17:25   ` Darren Hart
2006-04-09 18:31     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1144471549.21670.11.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=billh@gnuppy.monkey.org \
    --cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    --cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vernux@us.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.