From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261757AbULUNdL (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:33:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261758AbULUNdL (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:33:11 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:23431 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261757AbULUNdF (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:33:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:32:13 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Loic Domaigne Cc: Nick Piggin , nptl@bullopensource.org, Linux-Kernel@Vger.Kernel.ORG Subject: Re: OSDL Bug 3770 Message-ID: <20041221133213.GA16238@elte.hu> References: <41C8047E.1030403@cyberone.com.au> <25289.1103630797@www66.gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25289.1103630797@www66.gmx.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Loic Domaigne wrote: > > Yes, it does support hard CPU binding - sched_setaffinity > > Yes, I believe that /sched_setaffinity()/ offers a practical solution > to the problem we are faced. that's the short-term workaround. Another model for CPU-bound RT tasks is the use of isolcpus. (see Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt) but that's the thinking behind current RT scheduling: no global sorting of priorities is done on SMP, but if you know the priorities and the workload in advance you can manually bind them to specific CPUs. > But I am eager to try the RT-patchset of Ingo. this is obviously more experimental stuff, and feedback is welcome. It is the current 'playground' for RT related scheduling features. Ingo