Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Feb 2000 17:07:19 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes |
| |
On 25 Feb 2000, Dimitris Michailidis wrote: > > * adds a new scheduling policy SCHED_IDLE. Processes of this type run on CPUs > that would otherwise be idle. Useful for apps like SETI@Home, code crackers, > etc. Implementation of this feature is extremely lightweight. > Among the scheduling functions only schedule() is SCHED_IDLE-aware > and the overhead for non-idle CPUs is at most 1 instruction per schedule() > invocation;
So why do you think your implementation of this doesn't have the deadlock that every other implementation has?
The deadlock is due to priority inversion, where a "idle-priority" task gets a resource (say the directory semaphore), goes to sleep, and never wakes up again because there is some slightly more important process running all the time.
In short, this has been tried before, and it has ALWAYS been a serious security holw full of denial-of-service kind of attacks.
Not applied,
Linus
- 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/
| |