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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
