[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question
At 03:18 PM 8/16/2003 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>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.

Ok, so you'd want a class where you could register an "exception handler"
prior to submitting a system call, and any subsequent schedule would be
treated as an exception? (they'd have to be nestable exceptions too
right?... <imagines stack explosions> egad:)

>The interesting part is what to do when the original task (the one
>that went to sleep) wakes up.



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:0.106 / U:27.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site