lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] optional non-interactive mode for cpu scheduler
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > SCHED_ISO would be interesting,

    Cool! I've been toying with this too :)

    > but all SCHED_BATCH patches that i've
    > seen so far were fundamentally broken. [ none protects against the
    > possibility of a simple CPU hog starving a SCHED_BATCH task in kernel
    > mode holding say /home's i_sem forever. None except the one i wrote a
    > couple of years ago that is ;-) ]

    I guess the one I wrote for staircase is inadequate too. Although in the
    field the implementation has been safe as far as I can tell.

    I'm thinking of holding off for a bit to allow those current changes to
    be tried in -mm for a bit.

    I have two more questions - there are already userspace tools and older
    out-of-tree kernels (inluding my current one) that use SCHED_BATCH and
    SCHED_ISO.

    Should we respect the values for these policies and use numbering
    consistent with them (meaning SCHED_BATCH at 3 would be reserved but not
    used) or should we dish out values according to when they're implemented
    and demand userspace be updated.

    Should we move to a policy bitmask numbering system and/or make
    SCHED_CPUBOUND, SCHED_ISO etc subpolicies of SCHED_NORMAL?

    Regards,
    Con
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.022 / U:37.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site