Re: [RFC][PATCH 17/22] sched: add signaling overrunning -deadlinetasks.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 16:39 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 22:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:40 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > > +static inline void __dl_signal(struct task_struct *tsk, int which)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct siginfo info;
> > > +       long long amount = which == SF_SIG_DMISS ? tsk->dl.stats.last_dmiss :
> > > +                          tsk->dl.stats.last_rorun;
> > > +
> > > +       info.si_signo = SIGXCPU;
> > > +       info.si_errno = which;
> > > +       info.si_code = SI_KERNEL;
> > > +       info.si_pid = 0;
> > > +       info.si_uid = 0;
> > > +       info.si_value.sival_int = (int)amount;
> > > +
> > > +       /* Correctly take the locks on task's sighand */
> > > +       __group_send_sig_info(SIGXCPU, &info, tsk);
> > > +       /* Log what happened to dmesg */
> > > +       printk(KERN_INFO "SCHED_DEADLINE: 0x%4x by %Ld [ns] in %d (%s)\n",
> > > +              which, amount, task_pid_nr(tsk), tsk->comm);
> > > +} 
> > 
> > This being a G-EDF like scheduler with a u<=1 schedulability test, we're
> > firmly in soft-rt territory which means the above will be very easy to
> > trigger.. Maybe not spam dmesg?
> >
> Ok, right. Maybe, if I add the SF_HARD_RT flag (and force the hard tasks
> to run on a single CPU they must specify) I can keep the notification
> for those tasks only. What do you think?

Sure.. that makes sense.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/