> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:41, Steve Rotolo wrote:
> > I guess the bottom-line is: given N logical cpus, 1/N of all
> > SCHED_NORMAL tasks may get stuck on a sibling cpu with no chance to
> > run. All it takes is one spinning SCHED_FIFO task. Sounds like a bug.
>
> You're right, and excuse me for missing it. We have to let SCHED_NORMAL tasks
> run for some period with rt tasks. There shouldn't be any combination of
> mutually exclusive tasks for siblings.
>
> I'll work on something.
Wild thought: how about doing this for the sibling ...
rp->nr_running += SOME_BIG_NUMBER
when a SCHED_FIFO task starts running on some cpu, and
undo the above when the cpu is released. This fools
the load balancer into _gradually_ moving tasks off the
sibling, when the cpu is hogged by some SCHED_FIFO task,
but should have little effect if a SCHED_FIFO task takes
little cpu time.
Regards,
Joe
--
"Money can buy bandwidth, but latency is forever" -- John Mashey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
