lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] kthread: run kthreadd with max priority SCHED_FIFO
    From
    Date

    On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 02:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100 Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 04:52 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
    > >
    > > > So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should be able to lock a system?
    > > > I guess I see both sides of this argument - yes, it's userspace at
    > > > fault, but in other cases when userspace is at fault, we take action
    > > > (OOM, segfault, others). Isn't this situation just another case where
    > > > the kernel needs to avoid the evils of userland going awry?
    > >
    > > FYI, Ingo queued the below.
    > >
    > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/31/344
    > >
    >
    > That's pretty different of course, but rlimit might be a suitable interface
    > for implementing RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS.

    I'd extend Peter's rt safety net instead: mark for forced requeue when
    the soft limit is hit, or add that as an intermediate stage. Possibly
    add a demotion stage as well. I wouldn't try to select lower priority
    tasks, which RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS implies to me.

    -Mike



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-23 10:03    [W:0.058 / U:28.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site