[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.090 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site