public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Kaczmarski <fallow@op.pl>,
	Shane Shrybman <shrybman@aei.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:50:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040804005034.GE2334@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41102FE5.9010507@bigpond.net.au>

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> In such schemes, realtime tasks are considered separately from
>> timesharing tasks. Finding a task to run or migrate proceeds with a
>> circular search of the portion of the bitmap used for timesharing tasks
>> after a linear search of that for RT tasks. The list to enqueue a
>> timesharing task in is just an offset from the fencepost determined by
>> priority. Dequeueing is supported with a tag for actual array position.
>> I did this for aperiodic queue rotations, which differs from your SPA.

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:37:57AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> While pondering this I have stumbled on a problem that rules out using a 
> rotating list for implementing promotion.  The problem is that one of 
> the requirements is that once a SCHED_NORMAL task is promoted to the 
> MAX_RT_PRIO slot it stays there (as far as promotion is concerned). 
> With the rotating list this isn't guaranteed and, in fact, any tasks 
> that are in the MAX_RT_PRIO slot when promotion occurs will actually be 
> demoted to IDLE_PRIO - 1.

Aperiodic rotations defer movement until MAX_RT_PRIO's slot is evacuated.


On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:37:57AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> Promotion should be a rare event as it is unnecessary if there's less 
> than two tasks on the runqueue and when there are more than one task on 
> the runqueue the interval between promotions increases linearly with the 
> number of runnable tasks.  It is also an O(1) operation albeit with a 
> constant factor determined by the number of occupied SCHED_NORMAL 
> priority slots.

The asymptotics were in terms of SCHED_NORMAL priorities.


On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 10:37:57AM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> I will modify the code to take better advantage of the fact that 
> promotion is not required when the number of runnable tasks is less than 
> 2 e.g. by resetting next_prom_due so that the first promotion after the 
> number of runnable tasks exceeds 1 will only occur after a full 
> promotion interval has expired.  At normal loads (and with sensible 
> promotion interval settings i.e. greater than the time slice size) this 
> should result in promotion never (or hardly ever) occurring and the 
> overhead of do_promotions() will only have to be endured when it's 
> absolutely necessary.

The primary concern was that ticklessness etc. may require it to occur
during context switches.


-- wli

  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-04  0:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-02  6:31 [PATCH] V-3.0 Single Priority Array O(1) CPU Scheduler Evaluation Peter Williams
2004-08-02 13:42 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-03  0:33   ` Peter Williams
2004-08-03  2:03     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-03  3:39       ` Peter Williams
2004-08-03 10:49         ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-04  0:37           ` Peter Williams
2004-08-04  0:50             ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-08-04  1:36               ` Peter Williams
2004-08-04  1:51                 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-04  2:40                   ` Peter Williams
2004-08-04  7:05                     ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-04  7:44                     ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-05  1:06                       ` Peter Williams
2004-08-05  2:00                         ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-05  2:12                           ` Peter Williams
     [not found] <2oEEn-197-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-08-02 13:27 ` Andi Kleen
2004-08-03  0:27   ` Peter Williams
2004-08-03  3:53     ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-03  4:38       ` Peter Williams
2004-08-03  6:51       ` Andi Kleen
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-07  1:44 Peter Williams

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=20040804005034.GE2334@holomorphy.com \
    --to=wli@holomorphy.com \
    --cc=fallow@op.pl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
    --cc=shrybman@aei.ca \
    /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