Re: low priority soft RT?

Rik van Riel (riel@humbolt.nl.linux.org)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:48:31 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:40:25 +0200 (CEST), Rik van Riel
> <riel@nl.linux.org> said:
>
> > I completely agree on this one. We should probably mark a process
> > with "bonus" if another process tries to grab a lock that's held
> > by the first process.
>
> "Priority inheritance." It adds complexity to _every_ place where the
> kernel blocks. Remember, we don't always use locks. The page cache
> has a single PG_Locked flag on the page, plus a per-page wait queue.

OK. Then we probably shouldn't do this at all. SCHED_IDLE is of
limited value and the chance of the system actually locking up
is minute in non-hostile environments.

Just let the common path be cheap and have the sysadmin decide
if he wants to take the risk of a minor lockup or not...

Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ |
| Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
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/