[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Minutes from Feb 21 LSE Call
    On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 04:27:54PM -0700, wrote:
    > I'm not sure what you are complaining about. I don't think there is good
    > or even marginal data or explanations of this "effect".

    You don't need data. It's conceptually obvious. If you have a higher
    priority thread that's not running because another thread of lower priority
    is hogging the CPU for some unknown operation in the kernel, then you're
    going be less able to respond to external events from the IO system and
    other things with respect to a Unix style priority scheduler.

    That's why we have fully preemptive RTOS to deal with that and priority
    inheritence, both of which are fundamental to any kind of fixed-priority

    If you're scheduler is scheduling crap, then it's not going to be very
    effective and scheduling...

    Rhetorical question... what the hell do you think this is about ?

    It's about getting relationship inside the kernel to respect and be
    controllable by the scheduler in some formal manner, not some random
    not-so-well-though-out hack of the day.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.028 / U:11.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site