On 20/02/19 21:25 +0100, Klaus Wenninger wrote: > Hmm maybe the thing that should be scheduled is running at > SCHED_RR as well but with just a lower prio. So it wouldn't > profit from the sched_yield and it wouldn't get anything of > the 5% either.
Actually, it would possibly make the situation even worse in that case, as explained in sched_yield(2): > since doing so will result in unnecessary context > switches, which will degrade system performance (not sure into which bucket would this context-switched time get accounted if at all, but the physical-clock time is ticking in the interim...) I am curious if well-tuned SCHED_DEADLINE as mentioned might be a more comprehensive solution here, also to automatically flip still-alive-without-progress buggy scenarios into a purposefully exaggerated condition and hence possibly actionable (like with token loss -> fencing). -- Jan (Poki)
pgproQPcFiqTk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
