Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:18:51 +0100 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question |
| |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > At 01:54 AM 8/16/2003 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > [...] > > >None of these will work well if "wakee" tasks are able to run > >immediately after being woken, before "waker" tasks get a chance to > >either block or put the wakees back to sleep. > > Sounds like another scheduler class (SCHED_NOPREEMPT) would be required.
If something special were to be added, it should be a way for a task to say "If I call schedule() and block, don't do a schedule, just continue my timeslice in task X".
The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an asynchronous fashion, after all. A proper task scheduling is inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request.
The interesting part is what to do when the original task (the one that went to sleep) wakes up.
-- Jamie
- 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/
| |