Ingo/David,
Resending this as I did not get any reply.
This time I am attaching the testcases where I am noticing this
Any feedback is appreciated
-Dinakar
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:26:01AM +0530, Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that PI boosted SCHED_OTHER tasks behave like they have
> SCHED_FIFO policy, while PI boosted SCHED_RR tasks continue to
> behave like they have SCHED_RR policy. This didn't seem right
>
> Does something like the following patch make sense?
>
> -Dinakar
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.14/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.14.orig/kernel/sched.c 2005-11-25 01:24:06.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6.14/kernel/sched.c 2005-11-25 01:24:26.000000000 +0530
> @@ -2986,8 +2986,9 @@
> * On PREEMPT_RT, boosted tasks will also get into this
> * branch and wont get their timeslice decreased until
> * they have done their work.
> + * Boosted SCHED_OTHER tasks round-robin as well
> */
> - if ((p->policy == SCHED_RR) && !--p->time_slice) {
> + if ((p->policy != SCHED_FIFO) && !--p->time_slice) {
> p->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> p->first_time_slice = 0;
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
Attachment:
pitests.tar.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
- References:
- More PI issues with -rt
- From: Dinakar Guniguntala <[email protected]>
- More PI issues with -rt
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC]add ACPI hooks for IDE suspend/resume
- Next by Date: Re: Broadcom 43xx first results
- Previous by thread: More PI issues with -rt
- Next by thread: [PATCH 2.6.15-rc2] Fxi hardcoded cpu=0 in workqueue for per_cpu_ptr() calls
- Index(es):
 |