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]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site