I believe before we merge these tress, we should do a good analysis
and usecases for deadline scheduler? The networking issues are in
dataplane where we want to reduce the latency and schedule dataplane
thread ASAP. We also need to protect control plane at gross level,
that probably can be done by reserving resources. We also need to
do certain timer based processing, but most of these have big enough
granularity that we can live without deadline scheduling.
I would like to hear the usecases before we merge the tree.
Pradeep
On 5/17/13 7:41 AM, Mark Orvek wrote:
The PREEMPT_RT patchset is configurable. I believe the default is
PREEMPT_DESKTOP which is what most MV CGE customers use. Another
config options is PREEMPT_NONE but I believe its usage is rare.
Mark
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Patrick MacCartee
<pmaccar...@mvista.com <mailto:pmaccar...@mvista.com>> wrote:
Will these be added in a way that makes them easy to remove? Many,
>95% don't use Preempt RT in Linux as it impacts network
performance and makes things very temperamental. You would think
people would just disable this RT, but when trying to isolate
issues it adds another variable to the mix. I believe Yocto has a
way of adding and removing RT patches that is some
what straight forward and preferable based on feedback from OEM's.
Just a thought,
Patrick
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Mike Holmes
<mike.hol...@linaro.org <mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org>> wrote:
In LNG you could end up with an interesting mix of preempt RT
and deadline patches making the analysis and benchmarking
interesting to interpret.
In addition there are discussions about adding zero overhead
linux (ZOL) like features.
Mike
On Friday, May 17, 2013 6:08:20 AM UTC-4, David Rusling wrote:
Amit,
an interesting proposal. I think that most of the
LNG steering committee is on this alias, but just in case,
I'm adding them to it...
Dave
Amit Kucheria
17 May 2013 10:15
Hi all,
As part of our investigations into the Linux scheduler we've
interacted with Juri Lelli at the University of Pisa
(cc'ed) who is
part of a group that is working on a DEADLINE
scheduler[1] for
Linux[2].
While we're coming at this from a power managment
angle[3], I suspect
that LEG and LNG already have real-world usecases that
would benefit
from deadline scheduler found in other RTOSes.
So I think it makes sense to merge Juri's tree into
linux-linaro going
forward to allow easier experimentation. Does LEG and
LNG have any
interest in this at this point?
Juri has expressed an interest in maintaining a current
branch of the
code that could be merged into our monthly release. In
return, real
world usecases will improve his chances of getting the
code merged
into mainline.
Regards,
Amit
[1] http://retis.sssup.it/?q=node/__35
<http://retis.sssup.it/?q=node/35>
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/__11/373
<https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/11/373>
[3] Mostly involving discussions at this point, no real
engineering
effort invested yet
_________________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linar...@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/__mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
<http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev>
--
David Rusling
CTO
Linaro Ltd
e. david....@linaro.org
w. http://www.linaro.org
Linaro: The future of Linux on ARM
--
Patrick J. MacCartee
Director of Product Management
MontaVista Software LLC
fone: 408-572-7937 <tel:408-572-7937>
mobile: 415-637-0257 <tel:415-637-0257>
pmaccar...@mvista.com <mailto:pmaccar...@mvista.com>
--
Mark Orvek
mark.or...@linaro.org <mailto:mark.or...@linaro.org>
VP, Engineering
*M*: +1.408.313.6988*IRC:* morvek *Skype:* morvek
linaro.org <http://linaro.org> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
