Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:48:31 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: low priority soft RT? |
| |
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:40:25 +0200 (CEST), Rik van Riel > <riel@nl.linux.org> said: > > > 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. > > "Priority inheritance." It adds complexity to _every_ place where the > kernel blocks. Remember, we don't always use locks. The page cache > has a single PG_Locked flag on the page, plus a per-page wait queue.
OK. Then we probably shouldn't do this at all. SCHED_IDLE is of limited value and the chance of the system actually locking up is minute in non-hostile environments.
Just let the common path be cheap and have the sysadmin decide if he wants to take the risk of a minor lockup or not...
Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ | | Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ | | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |