![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 14:38 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > Paul Davis wrote: > > its a fine answer, but its the answer to a slightly different > > question. if anyone (maybe us audio freaks, maybe someone else) comes > > up with a reason to want "The Real SCHED_FIFO", the original question > > will have gone unanswered. > > Ah then you missed something. You can set the max cpu of SCHED_ISO to > 100% and then you have it. > Is that a good solution? I'm not sure if it is wise to try to masquerade SCHED_ISO as an unprivileged RT class. I mean what happens if two users are trying to run independent SCHED_ISO systems? Both will probably break, right? And how can you provide _any_ guarantees in an arbitrary environment without this becoming a privileged operation? I can't quite get my head around that at the moment... I guess if you have SCHED_ISO start out with 0 guarantees, and have root dole some out, then it may be workable. But then that is just another specialised ad hoc sort of hack wouldn't it? (not talking about SCHED_ISO itself, but the granting of the privilege to use it). - 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 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||