On Wed, Sep 20 2023 at 17:57, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Find below a PoC which implements that scheme. It's not even close to
>> correct, but it builds, boots and survives lightweight testing.
>
> Whew, that was electric. I had barely managed to sort through some of
> the config maze.
> From a quick look this is pretty much how you described it.
Unsurpringly I spent at least 10x the time to describe it than to hack
it up.
IOW, I had done the analysis before I offered the idea and before I
changed a single line of code. The tools I used for that are git-grep,
tags, paper, pencil, accrued knowledge and patience, i.e. nothing even
close to rocket science.
Converting the analysis into code was mostly a matter of brain dumping
the analysis and adherence to accrued methodology.
What's electric about that?
I might be missing some meaning of 'electric' which is not covered by my
mostly Webster restricted old-school understanding of the english language :)
>> I did not even try to look into time-slice enforcement, but I really want
>> to share this for illustration and for others to experiment.
>>
>> This keeps all the existing mechanisms in place and introduces a new
>> config knob in the preemption model Kconfig switch: PREEMPT_AUTO
>>
>> If selected it builds a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel, which disables the
>> cond_resched() machinery and switches the fair scheduler class to use
>> the NEED_PREEMPT_LAZY bit by default, i.e. it should be pretty close to
>> the preempt NONE model except that cond_resched() is a NOOP and I did
>> not validate the time-slice enforcement. The latter should be a
>> no-brainer to figure out and fix if required.
>
> Yeah, let me try this out.
That's what I hoped for :)
Thanks,
tglx
