![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
At 01:35 AM 8/13/2003 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>Hi!
>
> > >> 2. It's not useful for video (I see no difference between realtime
> > >> component of video vs audio), and if the cpu restriction were opened up
> > >> enough to become useful, you'd end up with ~pure SCHED_RR, which you
> can
> > >no
> > >> way allow Joe User access to. As a SCHED_LOWLATENCY, it seems like it
> > >> might be useful, but I wonder how useful.
> > >
> > >Why shouldn't it be useful with video, is a frame processing burst longer
> > >than
> > >a time slice? The rule for when to and how to revert a SCHED_SOFTRR can be
> > >changed.
> >
> > Everything I've seen says "you need at least a 300Mhz cpu to decode". My
> > little cpu is 500Mhz, so I'd have to make more than half of my total
> > computational power available for SCHED_SOFTRR tasks for video decode in
> > realtime to work. Even on my single user box, I wouldn't want to have to
> > fight for cpu because some random developer decided to use
> > SCHED_SOFTRR. If I make that much cpu available, someone will try to use
> > it. Personally, I think you should need authorization for even tiny
> > amounts of cpu at this priority.
>
>What about only offering SCHED_SOFTRR to people logged in on console,
>similar to way cdrom and /dev/dsp is handled on newer boxes?
I'm always logged in on console, so with no authorization required, it'd
always be available to every task I start.
-Mike
-
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/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||