From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
Cc: xlpang@redhat.com, "Luca Abeni" <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
"Daniel Bristot de Oliveira" <bristot@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Tommaso Cucinotta" <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
"Rômulo Silva de Oliveira" <romulo.deoliveira@ufsc.br>,
"Mathieu Poirier" <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Throttle a constrained task activated if overflow
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:35:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412083557.1e93135d@grimm.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58EE1DCC.80002@redhat.com>
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 20:30:04 +0800
Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> wrote:
> Image this deadline task was preempted after running 0.1ms by another one with an
> earlier absolute deadline for 1.9ms, after scheduled back it will have the same status
> (1.9ms remaining runtime, 2ms remaining deadline) under the current implementation.
>
> I can hardly figure out the difference, why is wake-up(will check dl_entity_overflow())
> so special?
The difference between a wake-up and being preempted is that one is
voluntarily done by the application, the other is done by the
scheduler. The preemption done by the schedule must very well be in
line with the algorithms of the scheduler. But for cases where the task
voluntarily sleeps and then wakes up at some arbitrary time, the
scheduler has no idea what its intent was. Not to mention, it must
still guarantee the bandwidth for other tasks.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-12 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-10 9:22 Xunlei Pang
2017-04-10 20:47 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2017-04-11 1:36 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-11 7:40 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2017-04-11 5:53 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-11 7:06 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-11 9:24 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2017-04-12 2:08 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-12 5:27 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-12 6:55 ` Luca Abeni
2017-04-12 12:30 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-12 12:35 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-04-12 13:10 ` luca abeni
2017-04-13 3:06 ` Xunlei Pang
2017-04-13 8:36 ` Xunlei Pang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170412083557.1e93135d@grimm.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=romulo.deoliveira@ufsc.br \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it \
--cc=xlpang@redhat.com \
--cc=xpang@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®