Re: low priority soft RT?
Rogier Wolff (R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:41:53 +0200 (MEST)
David Schleef wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 09:25:12PM -0500, cd_smith@ou.edu wrote:
> > Anyone thought about allowing soft RT (SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR) tasks with
> > negative priorities? These would only be executed if no other tasks of
> > any type are there. Giving a normal Linux task a niceness value won't do
> > this, as the task will still get some CPU time.
> >
> > I was just thinking back to past projects, and about a year ago I wished I
> > had something like this to do background housekeeping tasks for a
> > distributed application I was writing -- I wanted to do them if possible
> > on a free system, and only schedule time on some system if they didn't get
> > scheduled anyway.
> >
> > Since I'm sure this isn't a new idea, any good reasons not to allow this?
> > (surely there can't be security implications, right?) I'm not really
> > interested in doing it myself right now, but I might in the future if
> > there aren't good reasons otherwise.
Chris, I worked on a Unix system a long time ago ('86), and there they
defined "nice 19" to be "when nobody else wants the CPU". That was a
VERY handy system. For example: rc5des would not consume the 3-5% of
the CPU of my system when I'm actually doing something CPUbound.
Roger.
--
** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
------ Microsoft SELLS you Windows, Linux GIVES you the whole house ------
-
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/