Similarly, the SCHED_DEADLINE patches shouldn't affect default runtime scheduler behaviour unless a task uses the DEADLINE policy.
However, I haven't studied the intersection of the Preempt RT and SCHED_DEADLINE patches in source form yet. If they touch common pieces of code, merging both in might be an ongoing effort. Juri, do you know? On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Mark Orvek <mark.or...@linaro.org> 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>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>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 >> mobile: 415-637-0257 >> pmaccar...@mvista.com >> > > > > -- > Mark Orvek > > mark.or...@linaro.org > > VP, Engineering > > *M*: +1.408.313.6988 *IRC:* morvek *Skype:* morvek > 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
