mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sen wang <wangsen.linux@gmail.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: report a bug about sched_rt
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:55:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <454c71700907252055i51f14efdk942f95601fdae878@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090724072826.4c35bc2a@infradead.org>

2009/7/24 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
>
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:57:35 +0800
> sen wang <wangsen.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I find something is wrong about sched_rt.
> >
> >  when I am debugging my system with rt_bandwidth_enabled, there is a
> > running realtime FIFO task in the sched_rt running queue and
> >  the fair running queue is empty.  I found the idle task will be
> > scheduled up when the running task still lie in the  sched_rt running
> > queue!
> >
> > this will happen when rt runqueue passed it's rt_bandwidth_enabled
> > runtime,then the scheduler choose the idle task instead of realtime
> > FIFO task.
> >
> > the reason lie in: when scheduler try to pick up a realtime FIFO task,
> > it will check if rt_throttled is enabled,
> > if so, it'll return and try fair queue but it is empty, then it come
> > to the sched_idle class.
> >
> > I don't think it reasonable, we should give the realtime FIFO task the
> > chance, even when rt runqueue passed it's runtime.
> > because it is cpu's free time.
>
>
> sounds like a good power limiting feature...
>
>

what I want to say is:
If we give cpu to rt task at that situation,the normal fair task still
have chance to get cpu in the left 50ms.(say the throttle is 950
ms).because in the left 50ms,throttle  is still enabled, every
tick,the rt schedule will check the normal fair task.if find some
one,rt will yield cpu to
the new coming noraml fair task.

for realtime system there is stll normal fair task, so the bandwidth
is useful,we cann't just
turn it off simply.

I think the usespace schedule policy is not feasible. because when and
who and where to implemnt it?glibc,uclibc,android bionic.?  can you
make sure they will implent the compatible policy?  kernel is the best
place to do it.

and since linux is used for so many fields,why not provide different
feature for different system.by adding a new kenrel config item,say
CONFIG_REAL_TIME_SYSTEM, we can give cpu to rt task when throttle is
on,by disable CONFIG_REAL_TIME_SYSTEM,everything is keep untouched for
server and desktop.

i don't know if the viewpoint will offsend somebody, sorry first  :)


> --
> Arjan van de Ven        Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
> visit http://www.lesswatts.org

      reply	other threads:[~2009-07-26  3:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-24 10:57 sen wang
2009-07-24 12:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 13:04   ` sen wang
2009-07-24 13:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 13:26       ` sen wang
2009-07-24 13:33         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 13:44           ` sen wang
2009-07-24 13:54             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 14:04               ` sen wang
2009-07-24 14:48                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 14:53                   ` sen wang
2009-07-24 15:07                   ` sen wang
2009-07-24 15:24                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 15:43                       ` sen wang
2009-07-24 15:34                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-07-25 11:12                     ` Raistlin
2009-07-24 14:24               ` sen wang
2009-07-24 14:48                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 15:02                   ` sen wang
2009-07-24 15:40                   ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-24 16:01                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-24 23:30                       ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-25  5:22                         ` Bill Gatliff
2009-07-25 22:48                           ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-26  2:44                             ` Bill Gatliff
2009-07-26 19:03                               ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-27 10:45                                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-27 13:35                                 ` Bill Gatliff
2009-07-25 12:33                         ` Raistlin
2009-07-25 14:58                           ` Tommaso Cucinotta
2009-07-25 12:19                       ` Raistlin
2009-07-25 22:54                         ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-25 23:24                           ` Tommaso Cucinotta
2009-07-25 11:10         ` Raistlin
     [not found]           ` <454c71700907250429i1c77658bt6d65b02f08a29f4a@mail.gmail.com>
2009-07-25 23:01             ` Jamie Lokier
2009-07-24 14:28 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-07-26  3:55   ` sen wang [this message]

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=454c71700907252055i51f14efdk942f95601fdae878@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=wangsen.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®