Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:35:49 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: Priority Inversion in Scheduling |
| |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 06:42:10AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > At 02:23 AM 9/10/2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > >Hi John, > >Your mechanism is basically "backboost". Its how you get X to keep a > >high piroirity, but quite unpredictable. Giving a boost to a process > >holding a semaphore is an interesting idea, but it doesn't address the > >X problem. > > FWIW, I tried the hardware usage bonus thing, and it does cure the X > inversion problem (yeah, it's a pretty cheezy way to do it). It also > cures xmms skips if you can't get to the top without hw usage. I also > tried a cpu limited backboost from/to tasks associated with hardware, and > it hasn't run amok... yet ;-)
Against which scheduler, and when are you going to post the patch? - 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/
| |