Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Aug 2003 07:51:47 +0200 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: 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.
Yeah.
-Mike
- 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/
| |