lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Preemption model (was Re: voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc3-mm3-T3)
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 01:34, Con Kolivas wrote:
>
>>Lee Revell wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>With VP and PREEMPT in general, does the scheduler always run the
>>>>>>>highest priority process, or do we only preempt if a SCHED_FIFO process
>>>>>>>is runnable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Always the highest priority runnable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm, interesting. Would there be any advantage to a mode where only
>>>>>SCHED_FIFO tasks can preempt? This seems like a much lighter way to
>>>>>solve the realtime problem.
>>>>
>>>>No, the linux scheduler has always been preemptible. PREEMPT and VP just
>>>>allows it to preempt kernel code paths as well. It could be modified to
>>>>do such a thing but apart from real time applications it would perform
>>>>very badly overall.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am talking about a mode where we only allow a SCHED_FIFO process to
>>>preempt a kernel code path. In every other case it works like !PREEMPT.
>>>
>>>This is apparently how kernel preemption worked on SVR4.
>>
>>Yes it could. If you ask nicely, Ingo might even throw in yet another
>>config option in the kernel. It gets messy if multiple people start
>>hacking on the same thing when it's under heavy development.
>
>
> Oh, I was not going to post a patch, I don't know the code nearly well
> enough at this point :-). But it looks pretty straightforward.

I was talking about me ;-)

Cheers,
Con

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.422 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site