Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in theLinux-kernel]
From: James H. Anderson
Date: Thu Jul 16 2009 - 15:48:21 EST
It looks to me like Jim and Bjoern name the kernel-mutex locking scheme
(of non-preemption and FIFO queueing) as FMLP and advocate it for
user-level mutexes. Jim: Please correct me if my interpretation is
incorrect.
I should have addressed this, sorry.
Actually, I don't advocate for anything. :-) As I said in my very
first email in this thread, in the LTIMUS^RT project, changing Linux
is not one of our goals. I leave that to other people who are way
smarter than me.
But to the point you raise, please note that the long version of the
FMLP is a little more than combining non-preemption with FIFO waiting
since waiting is via suspension. And as I said in an earlier email,
we designed it for a real-time (only) environment. However, I think
a user-level variant that could be used in a more general environment
would certainly be possible.
-Jim
P.S. We didn't talk about the low processor utlization (Dhall effect)
mentioned in your last email. However, that applies to hard real-time
workloads, not soft real-time workloads. This discussion has been
touching on both.
--
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/