Messages in this thread | | | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] O13int for interactivity | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:19:28 +1000 |
| |
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:09, Mike Galbraith wrote: > At 06:43 PM 8/5/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > >On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:27, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > At 06:20 PM 8/5/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > >Every experiment I've tried at putting tasks at the start of the queue > > > >instead > > > >of the end has resulted in some form of starvation so should not be > > > > possible for any user task and I've abandoned it. > > > > > > (ditto:) > > > >Superuser access real time tasks may be worth reconsidering though... > > If they were guaranteed ultra-light, maybe, but userland is just not > trustworthy.
Agreed
> Better imho would be something like Davide's SOFT_RR with an additional > automatic priority adjust per cpu usage or something (cpu usage being a > [very] little bit of a latency hint, and a great 'hurt me' hint). Best > would be an API that allowed userland applications to describe their > latency requirements explicitly, with the scheduler watching users of this > API like a hawk, ever ready to sanction abusers. Anything I think about in > this area gets uncomfortably close to hard rt though, and all of the wisdom > I've heard on LKLM over the years wrt separation of problem spaces comes > flooding back.
I'll pass. There's enough on my plate already. Soft_rr in some form is a decent idea but best tackled separately.
Con
- 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/
| |