From: Raj Rajkumar <raj@ece.cmu.edu>
To: "James H. Anderson" <anderson@cs.unc.edu>
Cc: Ted Baker <baker@cs.fsu.edu>, Noah Watkins <jayhawk@soe.ucsc.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Raistlin <raistlin@linux.it>,
Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@ittc.ku.edu>,
Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>,
"Linux RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org> Fabio Checconi"
<fabio@gandalf.sssup.it>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <cucinotta@sssup.it>,
Giuseppe Lipari <lipari@retis.sssup.it>,
Bjoern Brandenburg <bbb@cs.unc.edu>,
Karthik Singaram Lakshmanan <lakshmanan@cmu.edu>,
Dionisio de Niz <dionisio@sei.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel]
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:47:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A5F91F4.5070505@ece.cmu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0907161538340.3814@anderson.cs.unc.edu>
Jim:
Good discussion. THanks for taking the time to educate me on past
exchanges.
> We didn't talk about the low processor utlization (Dhall effect)
> mentioned in your last email. However, that applies to hard real-time
> workloads, not soft real-time workloads. This discussion has been
> touching on both.
For hard real-time workloads, partitioning (static binding to specific
processors) works well, with developer control over where tasks run and
their contenders. For soft real-time workloads, global scheduling
(dynamic binding to available processors) should do well. The
situation is analogous to what we see in banks and airports. There is a
common global queue serviced by multiple counters for "soft" real-time
customers, and for those (business or first-class/special) customers
needing higher QoS, separate queues are provided. In the OS context,
we need to ensure that the two queues/servers do not interfere.
Ceilings would help even when the hard and soft real-time tasks use the
same processors.
However, the question of dealing with mutexes shared by processes
allocated to different processors remains. As Ted has pointed out,
avoiding them would be best! In practice, moving them to a
synchronization processor (as was pointed out by Peter? and also
discussed in one of my earlier papers on synchronization on
multi-processors) ought to be considered. I think the first-order
improvements are
from
(1) ensuring that task waiting times are bounded as a function of
critical sections only (i.e. avoiding the "unbounded" priority inversion
problem) - this is accomplished by having critical sections execute at
ceiling priorities (or higher) in the multiprocessor case,
(2) avoiding the wait from very long critical sections used only by
lower-priority tasks - using priority ceilings instead of higher
priority values for long critical sections mitigates this problem.
---
Raj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-16 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4A5F7254.3020809@ece.cmu.edu>
2009-07-16 19:18 ` [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel] James H. Anderson
[not found] ` <4A5F806D.6040701@ece.cmu.edu>
2009-07-16 19:46 ` James H. Anderson
2009-07-16 20:47 ` Raj Rajkumar [this message]
2010-04-26 11:56 Ted Baker
2010-04-26 18:29 ` Joerg Roedel
2010-04-26 18:37 ` Doug Niehaus
2010-05-03 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-03 15:54 ` Ted Baker
2010-05-03 16:13 ` Ted Baker
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=4A5F91F4.5070505@ece.cmu.edu \
--to=raj@ece.cmu.edu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=anderson@cs.unc.edu \
--cc=baker@cs.fsu.edu \
--cc=bbb@cs.unc.edu \
--cc=billh@gnuppy.monkey.org \
--cc=cucinotta@sssup.it \
--cc=dhaval.giani@gmail.com \
--cc=dionisio@sei.cmu.edu \
--cc=fabio@gandalf.sssup.it \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=jayhawk@soe.ucsc.edu \
--cc=lakshmanan@cmu.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lipari@retis.sssup.it \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niehaus@ittc.ku.edu \
--cc=raistlin@linux.it \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).