lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Scheduler priorities
From
Date
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 02:08, Wessel Dankers wrote:

> Well evidently it should be root-only, just like SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO.
> If the priority inversion issues are worked out this restriction could be
> removed. I remember discussing this problem with Rik van Riel.
> The kernel-preempt patch seems to be able to detect when a process holds a
> lock; perhaps the process scheduler can temporarily revert to SCHED_NORMAL
> when this is the case? Preferably with a large nice value.

The preempt-kernel patch does keep track of the lock count, but it does
not include semaphores and those are what we need to worry about.

I also don't think it is enough that SCHED_IDLE only be settable by
root. Regardless of what permissions it takes to set the scheduling
class, a "SCHED_IDLE" task should never be capable of harming an RT
task.

One solution I have come across is checking whether the task is
returning to kernel or user mode and acting appropriately. As needed,
the task can be scheduled as SCHED_NORMAL. This situation could even be
special-cased like ptrace and not impact normal scheduling. Perhaps
this is what Ingo had in mind ... I hope he is still interested and
presents some code.

I know all this because I tried to implement SCHED_IDLE about a year
ago. There were arguments against every approach, and SCHED_IDLE will
never be accepted until they are all satisfied. If we want it, it needs
to be done right.

Robert Love

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.053 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site