Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:05:10 +0300 | From | Matti Aarnio <> | Subject | Re: Weightless process class |
| |
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:49:43PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote: > > One problem here is that you might end up with a weightless > > process having grabbed a superblock lock, after which a > > normal priority CPU hog kicks in and starves the weightless > > process. > --- > One way would be to set a flag "I'm holding a lock" and when > it releases the lock(s), deschedule it?
There is a well-known name for this -- priority inversion.
Implement the whole shebang of starvation avoidance tricks, and we can whak the scheduler to group processes into separate subsets, which in current system leads to starvation lockups.
A thing for 2.5 ? (With possible backport to 2.4 latter.)
> -l
/Matti Aarnio - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |