Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:47:16 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Real Time scheduler? |
| |
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Peter Steiner wrote: > Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > > >> I already have something like that. It's a modification of how niceness > >> values are interpreted. > > >Wasn't there a problem with kernel locks though? > > The patch works here (1 cpu) without a single problem so far. I didn't > care to much about trying to avoid races or so, just made sure the > patch fits into the already existing locking stuff. > > Now every normal process waiting on that lock sleeps forever. I never > experienced such a problem so far so I didn't care about it. It might > be good to give every process at least a minimal amount of the cpu so > the system can escape those situations.
I've experienced a lockup like that ONCE in 5 months.
For me, this is serious enough to care about. I'll have a new (totally new) patch once the SMP reboot and APCI annoyances are fixed (rebooting the system now often takes 5 tries so I'm not patching at the moment :).
Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux Memory Management site: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/ | | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |