[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: low priority soft RT?
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 14:15:39 +0200 (CEST), Rik van Riel
> <> said:
> > Promotion to a higher scheduling class shouldn't be too
> > difficult.
> Sure, but when, exactly, will you do this? The condition I saw in
> your latest SCHED_IDLE patches are insufficient for the long term.
> Testing the lock_depth is not good enough: there are large parts
> of the VFS which now run without the kernel spinlock, but which
> can still hold or block on other resources (eg. page locks).

I completely agree on this one. We should probably mark a process
with "bonus" if another process tries to grab a lock that's held
by the first process.

It should involve no more than a little bit of code added to
the _slow_ patch -- keeping clean the fast path...

In the meantime, SCHED_IDLE should be controllable by root
(sysctl) as it is in my patch. It's a useful feature and
everybody should be able to make a decision about the risks
involved themselves (you can even start selected processes
under SCHED_IDLE and then disable it again).

Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
| Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: |
| Linux Memory Management site: |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie: |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.075 / U:2.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site