lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU feature, -D7
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Oops, after rereading the patch, a task that set its RT_CPU_RATIO
>>rlimit to zero wouldn't be escaping the mechanism at all. It would be
>>suffering maximum throttling. [...]
>
>
> my intention was to let 'limit 0' mean 'old RT semantics' - i.e. 'no RT
> CPU time for unprivileged tasks at all', and only privileged tasks may
> do it and then they'll get full CPU time with no throttling.
>
> so in that context your observation highlights another bug, which i
> fixed in the -D7 patch available from the usual place:
>
> http://redhat.com/~mingo/rt-limit-patches/
>
> not doing the '0' exception would make it harder to introduce the rlimit
> in a compatible fashion. (My current thinking is that the default RT_CPU
> rlimit should be 0.)

One solution to this dilemma might be to set a PF_FLAG on a task
whenever it gains RT status via this privilege bypass and only apply the
limit to tasks that have that flag set.

Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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:2.082 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site