[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Boris Dragovic wrote:

> > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock?
> > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes
> > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically
> > undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually
> > just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear,
> > as mark suggested.
> would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock
> so that they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave
> other to be executed when processor really idle?

Of course. Now we just need the code to determine when a task
is holding some kernel-side lock ;)


Linux MM bugzilla:

Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

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:0.061 / U:13.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site