Esben Nielsen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, K.R. Foley wrote:
Esben Nielsen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
Perfectly understood. I've had two customers ask me to increase the
priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config
option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I
thought that this might be something that others want. But I deal
with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what
everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject).
So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their
priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste
side.
i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We
should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to
not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled
with.
Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?
Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things
down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue.
Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have
a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher
priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT
app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO
scheduling within a fewer number of prorities.
Esben
Actually, is it really that slow to search a bitmap for a slot that
needs processing?
No, it is ultra fast - but done very often.
:-) I'm not going to argue this. You could definitely save a few
instructions if you had fewer priorities and it probably wouldn't be
very hard to create a patch to do this.
I work on real-time test stands which are less of an
embedded system and more of a real Unix system that require determinism.
It is very nice in some cases to have more than 10 RT priorities to work
with.
What for? Why can't you use FIFO at the same priorities for some of your
tasks? I pretty much quess you have a very few tasks which have some high
requirements. The rest of you "RT" task could easily share the lowest RT
priority. FIFO would also be more effective as you will have context
switches.
This about multiple priorities probably comes from an ordering of tasks:
You have a lot of task. You have a feeling about which one ought to be
more important than the other. Thus you end of with an ordered list of
tasks. BUT when you boil it down to what RT is all about, namely
meeting your deadlines, it doesn't matter after the 5-10 priorities
because the 5-10 priorities have introduced a lot of jitter to the rest
of the tasks anyway. You can just as well just put them at the same
priority.
Esben
All of the RT priorities that we have are not absolutely necessary. As I
think Steven pointed out in another email, it is nice though to be able
to priortize tasks using large jumps in priorities and then being able
to fill in tasks that are dependent on other tasks in between. Even if
you think of nothing but the IRQ handlers, the 5-10 priorities quickly
get crowded without any user tasks.
--
kr
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |