On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:03 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:00 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jonathan, > > > >> There is not much support available out-of-the-box in RTEMS for >> servers, other than some academic implementation of the constant >> bandwidth server (CBS) for uniprocessor EDF. >> > > The affinity should work if deadline tasks and priority based tasks never > are assigned to the same core. > My application is partitioned three ways: rate-monotonic tasks that are scheduled using the kernel tick and the rate monotonic manager, rate-monotonic tasks that are scheduled by sending rtems_events from a regular ISR, and throughput-oriented tasks that have lower priority than everything else. There are only two cores physically present. So I think I can keep the two realtime task categories distinct with 1:1 affinity and give the remaining time to throughput tasks using 1:any affinity. The result is that the core that is managed using the rate-monotonic manager should be schedulable using EDF's analysis, and the core that is managed by sending events from interrupts should be schedulable using fixed-priority rate-monotonic analysis. > > If you do this, you could experiment with affinity and then consider moving > to a partitioned scheduler setup with some cores running based on > deadline and other cores running threads based on priority. > > > The SMP EDF scheduler only supports pinning (single core) and not > affinity sets so the clustered scheduling may be the more optimal > alternative. > Its a 2-core system, so I don't need the flexibility afforded by using clustered scheduling instead of affinity. Thanks, -- Jonathan Brandmeyer
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
