At 06:42 PM 7/28/2003 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
>Quoting Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>:
>
> > At 09:44 AM 7/28/2003 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > >Yes I can reproduce it, but we need the Kirk approach and cheat. Some
> > > > >workaround for tasks that have fallen onto the expired array but
> > > shouldn't be
> > > > >there needs to be created. But first we need to think of one before we
> > can
> > > > >create one...
> > > >
> > > > Oh good, it's not my poor little box. My experimental tree already has
> > > > a "Kirk" ;-)
> > >
> > >could you give -G7 a try:
> > >
> > > redhat.com/~mingo/O(1)-scheduler/sched-2.6.0-test1-G7
> >
> > The dd case is improved. The dd if=/dev/zero is now prio 25, but it's
> > of=/dev/null partner remains at 16. No change with the xmms gl thread.
>
>Well O10 is not prone to the dd/of problem (obviously since it doesn't use
>nanosecond timing [yet?]) but I can exhibit your second weird one if I try
>hard
>enough.
Try setting the gl thread to SCHED_RR. That causes X to lose priority here
too.
-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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:35 EST