On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:08:18 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:15:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > However, I think there's a third alternative. I have memories of a
> > paper from UNC (I'd have to dig through the site to see if I can
> > still find it) where they argue that for a hierarchical (G-)FIFO
> > you should use minimal concurrency, that is run the minimal number
> > of (v)cpu servers.
> > This would mean we give a single CBS parameter and carve out the
> > minimal number (of max CBS) (v)cpu that fit in that.
> > I'm just not sure how the random affinity crap works out for that,
> > if we have the (v)cpu servers migratable in the G-EDF and migrate
> > to whatever is demanded by the task at runtime it might work, but
> > who knows.. Analysis would be needed I think.
> Hurm,.. thinking slightly more on this, this ends up being a DL task
> with random affinity, which is problematic IIRC.
Yes, there currently is no existing schedulability analysis for
multi-processor EDF with random affinities (as far as I know), but I
think we can at least have a look at developing this kind of analysis.
Giuseppe, what do you think?