lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] setscheduler fix
From
Date
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 11:20, Joe Korty wrote:

> Looks good to me.

Good.

> migration_thread and try_to_wake_up already have a simplier version of
> your test that seems to be correct for that environment, so no change
> is needed there.
>
> wake_up_forked_process in principle might need your patch, but as it
> appears to be called only from boot code it is unimportant that it
> have the lowest possible latency, so no change is needed there either.

Agreed.

This is worse than just a latency issue, by the way. Imagine if a
FIFO/50 thread promotes a FIFO/40 thread to FIFO/60. The thread should
run immediately (because, at priority 60, it is the highest), but it may
not until the FIFO/50 thread completes.

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 13:36    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans