Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy

[Peter Williams]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ===================================================================
> > --- MM-2.6.17-mm6.orig/kernel/mutex.c	2006-07-04 14:37:43.000000000 +1000
> > +++ MM-2.6.17-mm6/kernel/mutex.c	2006-07-04 14:38:12.000000000 +1000
> > @@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ __mutex_init(struct mutex *lock, const c
> >  
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mutex_init);
> >  
> > +static inline void inc_mutex_count(void)
> > +{
> > +	current->mutexes_held++;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void dec_mutex_count(void)
> > +{
> > +	current->mutexes_held--;
> > +}
> > +
>
> NACK! This whole patch is way too intrusive for such a relatively small 
> gain.
>
> also, if something doesnt hold a mutex, it might still be unsafe to 
> background it! For example if it holds a semaphore. Or an rwsem. Or any 
> other kernel resource that has exclusion semantics.
>
> so unless this patch gets _much_ less complex and much less intrusive, 
> we'll have to stay with SCHED_BATCH and nice +19.

This means being less strict but (as you imply) that may be not much 
better than nice +19.  I'll have a look at it.

Of course, a comprehensive (as opposed to RT only) priority inheritance 
mechanism would make the "safe/unsafe to background" problem go away and 
make this patch very simple.  Any plans in that direction?

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/