Talk:Least slack time scheduling

"and unlike rate monotonic scheduling, this algorithm can be used for processor utilization up to 100%." That's not true. RMS can utilize the system up to 100% as well. The difference it that EDF and LSF can schedule every task set that has a utilization below 1.0 whereas RMS assures a correct execution till U=ln(2). However, this is a sufficient criterion and RMS may schedule a task set with U=1 as well. Anyhow it should be mentioned that LSF leads to massive task switching.

I agree with you. This should be fixed. Some systems with U=1 can be scheduled both with RM and EDF. But only EDF can schedule any feasible system. --Max81 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Its most common use is in embedded systems"

LLF is doing quite a lot of preemptions. It has been studied by the real-time research community but I'm not sure it's actually used. Fixed Priority (FP, RM, DM, etc) and EDF are much more common. And for multicore systems, there are better algorithms. --Max81 (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)