Hi all,
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 13:24:51 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 08:16:05AM +0000, Bjarke Freund-Hansen wrote:
> > So what I gather from this is that the answer is yes, if and only if the
> > SCHED_DEADLINE task is the one with the earliest absolute deadline.
> > Otherwise, the task might not be woken up at the exact beginning of the
> > next period.
>
> 'Exact' is a difficult word. The only hard guarantee we can give is that
> you'll not wake up before the beginning.
I suspect there might be some terminology issues, here...
When I read "the task is woken up" I think about the task moving from a
"blocked" state to a "ready" state (that is, the task entering the
runqueue). So, I would say that the task is woken up (or, even better,
"untrhottled") at the beginning of the next period (modulo interrupt
disabling and timer granularity).
Then, the task is scheduled later (due to scheduler lock contention and
due to the scheduling algorithm) and might be dispatched even later
(due to other sources of kernel latencies).
I think what Tommaso wrote is that the task (ignoring kernel latencies)
the task enters the runqueue at the beginning of the next period, but
could be scheduled later (if there are tasks with earlier deadlines).
Then, if we do not ignore the kernel latencies the dispatching of the
task can be delayed even more by the effects pointed out by Peter.
Luca
> How long after depends on a
> number of things:
>
> - (hardware) timer granularity
> - IRQ disabled regions
> - scheduler lock contention
> - scheduling policy (what Tomaso said)
>
> Linux-RT aims to put bounds on things like IRQ disabled regions, but
> you're still subject to them. The (scheduler) locks are FIFO fair, so
> depending on the number of CPUs and the worst case section length you
> can compute bounds on that.
>
> So in practise it might be good enough (and that's all that counts), but
> 'exact' things are never :-)
>
> Note that the point of Real-Time programming is to not be late
> completing, we don't strictly care about when we start.
>
> > My use case is actually quite simple. I have a period of say 20ms. Within
> > this period certain things have to happen at certain points in time. These
> > things being (among others) sending a network message and validating
> > received messages (received asynchronously from the realtime thread.)
> >
> > 0ms 20ms 40ms 60ms
> > |--------------------|--------------------|--------------------|
> > ^ 0+7ms ^ 20+7ms ^ 40+7ms -
> > transmit message
> > ^ 0+20ms ^ 20+20ms ^ 40+20ms -
> > validate received messages
> >
> > Writing this I am questioning if SCHED_DEADLINE is the correct tool for the
> > problem.
> >
> > My current approach is to schedule the thread as an SCHED_DEADLINE task
> > with period 20ms and runtime ~1ms (less than 1ms is needed).
> > The task is the only SCHED_DEADLINE task on the system, so I rely on the
> > task being woken up exactly at the start of the period and perform the
> > received messages validation. I then calculate how long I have to sleep
> > before the +7ms point, perform that sleep for the appropriate time and
> > after being woken up I transmit the message. Tolerances are somewhere
> > around 100μs.
> >
> > Is this a valid approach? I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be
> > thinking about all this the wrong way.
> >
> > I am open to all and any suggestions, thank you in advance. :)
>
> So if I understand correctly, your TX constraints are:
>
> - not before +7ms
> - not after +7ms + 100us
>
> That's a fairly tight set. The traditional way to represent that would
> be a task with:
>
> sched_attr = {
> .sched_period = 20ms,
> .sched_deadline = 100us,
> .sched_runtime = ... /* something <= 100us */
> }
>
> Which will get woken at the +7ms edge.
>
> I'm not entirely clear on the RX constraints, are they at all correlated
> to the TX other than needing to happen in the same period? If not,
> they're an independent task:
>
> sched_attr = {
> .sched_period = 20ms,
> .sched_deadline = 20ms,
> .sched_runtime = ... /* something <= 20ms */
> }
>
> Which get woken at the period edge. But writing that it seems wrong,
> supposedly you want to process the packets received in _this_ period, so
> you need to better specify by which time you expect them to have been
> received and when you need to be done validating them.
>
> In any case, the important point being that you need to specify when you
> want to be _done_.
--
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
