Re: Real Time Runqueue

Davide Libenzi (davidel@xmailserver.org)
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:44:30 -0800 (PST)


On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> As you may know, a few of us are experimenting with multi-runqueue
> scheduler implementations. One area of concern is where to place
> realtime tasks. It has been my assumption, that POSIX RT semantics
> require a specific ordering of tasks such as SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR.
> To accommodate this ordering, I further believe that the simplest
> solution is to ensure that all realtime tasks reside on the same
> runqueue. In our MQ scheduler we have a separate runqueue for all
> realtime tasks. The problem is that maintaining a separate realtime
> runqueue is a pain and results in some fairly complex/ugly code.
>
> Since I'm not a realtime expert, I would like to ask if my assumption
> about strict ordering of RT tasks is accurate. Also, is anyone aware
> of other ways to approach this problem?

I do not use a separate queue coz, if it's single, it becomes a common
lock for all CPUs.
RT tasks are scheduled as usual and the only problem arises in
reschedule_idle() when an RT task is pushed onto the run queue when
1) on its CPU it is _not_ running the idle
2) on its CPU is running another RT task with higher priority

In that case a "good CPU" discovery loop is triggered, the task is moved
on that CPU runqueue, need_resched is set, an IPI is sent and on return
from the remote CPU IPI path the RT task is run.
A good solution would be ( i'm not doing it now ), in setscheduler() to
move the task in a way to have an even distribution of RT tasks among
CPUs.

- Davide

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