Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes

From: Manfred Spraul (manfreds@colorfullife.com)
Date: Sat Feb 26 2000 - 05:30:15 EST

Next message: Nathan Hand: "Re: Capabilities"
Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: /proc/nzombies"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Next in thread: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Reply: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The deadlock is due to priority inversion, where a "idle-priority" task
> gets a resource (say the directory semaphore), goes to sleep, and never
> wakes up again because there is some slightly more important process
> running all the time.
>
What about using SCHED_IDLE only for processes that are in user space?
e.g. ret_with_reschedule calls a special "schedule_with_SCHED_IDLE()".
As soon as a thread runs within kernel space, we ignore SCHED_IDLE.

-- Manfred

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Nathan Hand: "Re: Capabilities"
Previous message: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: /proc/nzombies"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Next in thread: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Reply: Chris Wedgwood: "Re: [PATCH] proposed scheduler enhancements and fixes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:15 EST