[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> > Since the linux kernel is not preemptive, the problem is a little
> > bit more complicated; A low priority kernel thread won't lose the
> > CPU while holding a lock except if it wants to. That simplifies the
> > locking problem you mention but the idea of background low priority
> > threads that run when the machine is really idle is also not this
> > simple.
> You seem to have a sence for black humor right :) ?
> As this is purely a complete nonsence
> - you were talking about M$Win3.11 right ?
> (are you really the employ of Sun ??)

awww.. Don't say that. Ludovic is a nice guy.

Look. Suppose you have a SCHED_IDLE task which does this,
in the kernel:

down(&sem2); /* This sleeps */

Now, a SCHED_OTHER task does this, in user space:

for ( ; ; )

We're dead. The SCHED_IDLE task will never be scheduled,
and hence will never release sem1. The solution to this
problem is well known but, as Ludovic says, "not simple".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.037 / U:2.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site