[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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

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

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.069 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site