gernot.hei...@data61.csiro.au writes:
> The server attempting to gate-keep and ensure that there’s enough time left
> for the request would be quite complex and probably expensive, as it would
> need a full model of its own execution. It would also be very pessimistic,
> given the pessimism of
On 24 Feb 2018, at 04:25, Kelly Dean wrote:
>
>
> gernot.hei...@data61.csiro.au writes:
>> The server’s apparent WCET is only 2W if the client fails to ensure that
>> it’s got enough budget left. That’s a client bug, the client can ensure that
>> it invokes the server with a fresh budget. It’s
Kelly Dean writes:
> But network traffic might be mixed criticality. For example, real-time sensor
> data mixed with bulk file transfers. Suppose the most critical thread must be
> allocated 90% to cover its worst case utilization
Er, I worded that poorly. Should have been explicit that all the
gernot.hei...@data61.csiro.au writes:
> The server’s apparent WCET is only 2W if the client fails to ensure that it’s
> got enough budget left. That’s a client bug, the client can ensure that it
> invokes the server with a fresh budget. It’s not the kernel’s job to ensure
> that buggy clients g
On 21 Feb 2018, at 05:55, Kelly Dean wrote:
>
> The article “Mixed-criticality support in seL4” at
> https://lwn.net/Articles/745946/ says seL4's solution to the problem of CPU
> budget exhaustion while in a non-reentrant shared data-structure server is
> timeout exceptions. The server might t
