lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
At 05:31 PM 1/13/2005 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
>Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:25:08PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> >> The basic issue is that the current semantics of SCHED_FIFO seem make
> >> the deadlock/data corruption due to runaway RT thread issue difficult.
> >> The obvious solution is a new scheduling class equivalent to SCHED_FIFO
> >> but with a mechanism for the kernel to demote the offending thread to
> >> SCHED_OTHER in an emergency.
> >
> > and this is getting really close to the original "counter proposal" to the
> > LSM module that was basically "lets make lower nice limit an rlimit, and
> > have -20 mean "basically FIFO" *if* the task behaves itself".
>
>Yes. However, my tests have so far shown a need for "actual FIFO as
>long as the task behaves itself."

I for one wonder why that appears to be so. What happens if you use
SCHED_RR instead of SCHED_FIFO?

(ie is the problem just one of running out of slice at a bad time, or is it
the dynamic priority adjustment)

-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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.138 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site