[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM
    At Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:03:51 +0100,
    Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:41:40AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
    > >
    > > fine, so the mlock situation may have improved enough post-2.6.9 that
    > > it can be considered fixed. that leaves the scheduler issue. but
    > > apparently, a uid/gid solution is OK for mlock, and not for the
    > > scheduler. am i missing something?
    > I think you skipped a step. You don't have a scheduler requirement, you have
    > a latency requirement. You currently *solve* that latency requirement via a
    > scheduler "hack", yet is quite clear that the "hard" realtime solution is
    > most likely not the right approach. Note that I'm not saying that you
    > shouldn't get the latency that that currently provides, but the downsides
    > (can hang the machine) are bad; a solution that solves that would be far
    > preferable
    > something like a soft realtime flag that acts as if it's the hard realtime
    > one unless the app shows "misbehavior" (eg eats its timeslice for X times in
    > a row) might for example be such a solution. And with the anti abuse
    > protection it can run with far lighter privilegs.

    This reminds me about the soft-RT patch posted quite sometime ago.
    I feel such a handy psuedo-RT scheduler class would be useful for
    other systems than JACK, too...

    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 14:09    [W:0.019 / U:18.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site