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: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: <fabio@...>, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...>, 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@...>, Dario <faggioli@...>
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008 - 10:57 am

> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
...

This is what I'm doing right now (apart from using timespec structs
instead of u64 values to align the sched_param struct specified by
POSIX on systems with SCHED_SPORADIC support).

I'll clean up the code and post it here in the next few days.



Ok, using the same mechanism even for SCHED_EDF tasks seems the
right way to go.



There is some work in this area, and there are some protocols
handling that, but that simple solution will be a good starting
point.
--
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, (Thu Jun 5, 10:57 am)