Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:44:27 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? |
| |
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:
> > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock? > > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes > > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically > > undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually > > just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear, > > as mark suggested. > > would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock > so that they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave > other to be executed when processor really idle?
Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task is holding some kernel-side lock ;)
regrads,
Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |