Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...>, Paul Jackson <pj@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...>, Derek L. Fults <dfults@...>, devik <devik@...>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@...>, Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...>, Emmanuel Pacaud <emmanuel.pacaud@...>, Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Matthew Dobson <colpatch@...>, <rostedt@...>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Paul Menage <menage@...>, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Fabio Checconi <fabio@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 5:44 pm

[ sorry if this is going OT ]
 
Hi,
 
 
I'm working on a partitioned EDF scheduler right now, and I have to
face several issues, starting from the interface to use to expose the
EDF scheduler to userspace, and the integration with the existing
sched_rt policy.

By now I'm experimenting with an additional sched_class that implements
a SCHED_EDF policy, extending the POSIX struct sched_param with the
EDF parameters of the task, do you see any better way to do that? 
Could that approach be reasonable?

Michael


      ___________________________________ 
Scopri il Blog di Yahoo! Mail: trucchi, novità, consigli... e la tua opinione!
http://www.ymailblogit.com/blog/
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Michael Trimarchi, (Wed Jun 4, 5:44 pm)
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Michael Trimarchi, (Thu Jun 5, 10:57 am)