>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at  6:39 AM, in message <20080618103919.GH15255@elte.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: 

quoted text
> * Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
> 
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at  3:17 PM, in message
>> <1213643862.16944.142.camel@twins>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>> wrote: 
>> > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 19:59 +0200, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>> > 
>> >> One way or another, we have different aritifacts (and mine have likely
>> >> more) but conceptually, both "violates" POSIX if a strict round-robin
>> >> scheduling is required.
>> > 
>> > 
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#t
>> > ag_02_08_04_01
>> > 
>> > Is quite strict on what FIFO should do, and I know of two points where
>> > we deviate and should work to match.
>> 
>> Thanks for the link, Peter.  When you read that, its pretty clear that 
>> this whole concept violates the standard.  Its probably best to just 
>> revert the patch and be done with it.
> 
> no, there's no spec violation here - the spec is silent on SMP issues.
> 
> the spec should not be read to force a global runqueue for RT tasks. 
> That would be silly beyond imagination.
> 
> so ... lets apply Dmitry's nice simplification, hm?

Hmm...I guess that is a good way to look at it.  Sounds good, thanks!

Perhaps I will write up a patch against his that fixes that suboptimal detection problem that he highlighted, afterall

Thanks,
-Greg


--
unsubscribe notice
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/