Re: massive_intr on CFS, BFS, and EDF

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 15:31 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 09/25/2009 10:07 AM, Michael Trimarchi wrote:
> > It is important to note that
> > the expected behavior of an edf scheduler is *not* a fair one. It has to
> > do its best to guarantee the deadlines of the admitted tasks.
> 
> Do you allow oversubscription with EDF?  It would seem so based on these
> results.  Would it maybe make sense to disallow oversubscription, or
> make it an option?

afaiu he doesn't, he simply splits the task's wcet between parent and
child and (intends?) to feed back on child exit.

> If you have massive oversubscription with EDF, what is the design
> intent?  Do you try to meet the goals on as many tasks as possible,
> while the oversubscribed tasks get nothing?

oversubscribing edf isn't in general recommended, iirc u>1 gives
unbounded latencies with edf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/