Messages in this thread | | | From | cd_smith@ou ... | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:49:13 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: low priority soft RT? |
| |
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, David Schleef wrote: > Such a change potentially violates the standard, and at the very least, > would be non-portable.
Non-portability I can deal with... how does it violate the standard? Surely POSIX.1b doesn't specify what happens if a process is set to a static priority less than 0. I don't have a copy of POSIX handy (and last time I tried to get one, it was prohibitively expensive) but that would surprise me. Of course programs that use the feature wouldn't have specified behavior on a POSIX system.
Am I wrong about POSIX in this case? Does POSIX specifically say that an attempt to set a priority less than 0 will return -EINVAL or something like that.
> It's also probably a bad idea due to possible priority inversion.
Granted, this is something to look out for. But it's perfectly possible to write programs with this in mind... As long as the process doesn't grab any resources in user space, and nothing gets preempted without knowing it in kernel space, so I don't see an unsolvable problem.
Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu>
- 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/
| |