Re: low priority soft RT?

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 16:35:16 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Johnnie Peters: "Re: Motorola Web Site"
Previous message: Daniel Kobras: "Re: Of locks, spinlocks and printks in schedule()"

On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 10:31:09PM +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> That's why I think that any process that holds a lock should have its
> priority boosted to just above all other SCHED_OTHER/SCHED_IDLE
> processes. This should be done not only for SCHED_IDLE processes but
> also for those with a policy of SCHED_OTHER.

So we trade a single instruction on the common case for a complex
mess that will slow down everything and probably deadlock. And the
benefit of this change is?

-
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: Johnnie Peters: "Re: Motorola Web Site"
Previous message: Daniel Kobras: "Re: Of locks, spinlocks and printks in schedule()"