[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Fix FIFO-99 abuse
On 08/02/19 14:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:26:12AM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > Yes a somewhat enforced default makes more sense to me. I assume you no longer
> > want to put the kthreads that just need to be above OTHER in FIFO-1?
> I'm not sure, maybe, there's not that many of them, but possibly we add
> another interface for them.

By the way, did you see this one which is set to priority 16?

> > While at it, since we will cram all kthreads on the same priority, isn't
> > a SCHED_RR a better choice now? I think the probability of a clash is pretty
> > low, but when it happens, shouldn't we try to guarantee some fairness?
> It's never been a problem, and aside from these few straggler threads,
> everybody has effectively been there already for years, so if it were a
> problem someone would've complained by now.

Usually they can run on enough CPUs so a real clash is definitely hard.

I'm trying to collect data on that, if I find something interesting I'll share

> Also; like said before, the admin had better configure.

I agree. But I don't think an 'admin' is an easily defined entity for all
systems. On mobile, is it the SoC vendor, Android framework, or the
handset/platform vendor/integrator?

In a *real* realtime system I think things are better defined. But usage of RT
tasks on generic systems is the confusing part. There's no real ownership and
things are more ad-hoc.

> Also also, RR-SMP is actually broken (and nobody has cared enough to
> bother fixing it).

If you can give me enough pointers to understand the problem I might be able to
bother with it :-)


Qais Yousef

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-02 16:09    [W:0.119 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site