lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Weightless process class
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:49:43PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> > One problem here is that you might end up with a weightless
> > process having grabbed a superblock lock, after which a
> > normal priority CPU hog kicks in and starves the weightless
> > process.
> ---
> One way would be to set a flag "I'm holding a lock" and when
> it releases the lock(s), deschedule it?

There is a well-known name for this -- priority inversion.

Implement the whole shebang of starvation avoidance tricks,
and we can whak the scheduler to group processes into separate
subsets, which in current system leads to starvation lockups.

A thing for 2.5 ? (With possible backport to 2.4 latter.)

> -l

/Matti Aarnio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.104 / U:32.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site