Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:20:09 +0100 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM |
| |
At Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:03:51 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:41:40AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > > > fine, so the mlock situation may have improved enough post-2.6.9 that > > it can be considered fixed. that leaves the scheduler issue. but > > apparently, a uid/gid solution is OK for mlock, and not for the > > scheduler. am i missing something? > > I think you skipped a step. You don't have a scheduler requirement, you have > a latency requirement. You currently *solve* that latency requirement via a > scheduler "hack", yet is quite clear that the "hard" realtime solution is > most likely not the right approach. Note that I'm not saying that you > shouldn't get the latency that that currently provides, but the downsides > (can hang the machine) are bad; a solution that solves that would be far > preferable > something like a soft realtime flag that acts as if it's the hard realtime > one unless the app shows "misbehavior" (eg eats its timeslice for X times in > a row) might for example be such a solution. And with the anti abuse > protection it can run with far lighter privilegs.
This reminds me about the soft-RT patch posted quite sometime ago. I feel such a handy psuedo-RT scheduler class would be useful for other systems than JACK, too...
Takashi - 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/
| |