Re: RT task scheduling

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 11:19:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > -ENOPARSE. CPU binding brings with itself obvious disadvantages that 
> > some applications are not ready to pay. CPU binding restricts the 
> > scheduler from achieving best resource utilization. That may be fine for 
> > some applications, but is not good enough for a good number of 
> > applications. So in no way can any 'CPU binding mechanism' (which 
> > already exists in multiple forms) replace the need and desire for a 
> > globally scheduled class of RT tasks.
> 
> You're discussing a different problem than what I'm talking about. 
> [...]

no, i'm discussing precisely the point you raised:

>>> You should consider for a moment to allow for the binding of a 
>>> thread to a CPU to determine the behavior of a SCHED_FIFO class task 
>>> instead of creating a new run category. [...]

with the observation that 1) binding is already possible [so your 
suggestion is apparently knocking on open doors] 2) binding is a 
separate mechanism (not adequate for all workloads) and it is thus 
orthogonal to what i'm trying to achieve with the "RT overload" stuff.  
Really simple and straightforward observations i think.

	Ingo