Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:29:06 +0100 (CET) | From | Boris Dragovic <> | Subject | Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? |
| |
> 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?
lynx
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |