> Hi Ted,
>
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 07:56 -0400, Ted Baker wrote:
> > I have not seen any more e-mail on this. How is it going? Is there any
> > chance of rolling in some corrections for the SCHED_SPORADIC treatment? In
> > particular, could we have a DO_NOT_RUN priority, that is guaranteed to
> > prevent a task from running at all?
>
> Without having fully read the referenced paper, we're currently looking
> to support the sporadic task model through SCHED_DEADLINE (by our SSSUP
> friends):
>
>
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/28/107
>
> This work aims to implement a full sporadic task scheduler [initially
> (g)EDF], SCHED_SPORADIC would have been a better name, but since POSIX
> stole that from us we took SCHED_DEADLINE to indicate its a deadline
> scheduler.
>
> Along with this work comes the full Deadline-inheritance (which should
> be but a small change from our current Priority-inheritance code), and
> also Bandwidth-inheritance (more work). Esp. the latter would also be
> required for your proposed SCHED_SPORADIC since it does aim to be a
> 'strict' bandwidth enforcing scheduler.
>
> [Does the proposed 'fixed' SCHED_SPORADIC deal with admission control?]
>
> But as it stands, this work would provide much more complete sporadic
> task support than the fixed SCHED_SPORADIC would.
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
