From: Elladan <elladan@eskimo.com>
To: Ming Lei <lei.ming@attbi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Elladan <elladan@eskimo.com>,
efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 scheduler is RTOS-alike?
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:47:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030522204735.GB4195@eskimo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <004601c3209c$f0739700$0305a8c0@arch.sel.sony.com>
Also of note, FIFO threads will actually block the same priority threads
forever. An RR thread will also block a lower priority thread forever,
but it'll get preempted by other RR threads with the same priority. A
FIFO thread is never preempted except by higher priority, it has to
yield somehow (explicitly or by blocking)
-J
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:01:30PM -0700, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> will it be the same behavior If thread A and thread B both have a lot of
> printf? Suppose A get first run, does B get run at all?
>
> > this question is regarding linux kernel 2.4.7-2.4.20.
> > linux 2.4 kernel does support real time sheduler. If using FIFO real time
> > schedule policy, would the case that higher priority thread starve the
> lower
> > priority thread happen? Similarly, let's say an example: if I have higher
> > prioority thread A and lower priority thread B, thread A is running
> without
> > any wait or blocking, is there a possiblity that 2.4 scheduler may want to
> > switch to thread B? Why?
>
> Yes, FIFO threads that spin will block lower priority threads forever.
>
> Sure, guaranteed if the high prio SCHED_FIFO task doesn't block at all. If
> you have a pure cpu burner, it will starve all lower priority
> threads.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-22 20:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-14 20:20 [PATCH][ATM] add reference counting to atm_dev chas williams
2003-05-14 20:36 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-14 22:16 ` chas williams
2003-05-15 4:30 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-15 14:39 ` chas williams
2003-05-15 20:10 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-15 20:20 ` chas williams
2003-05-16 0:14 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-16 16:05 ` chas williams
2003-05-16 20:44 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-16 0:19 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-14 20:59 ` Greg KH
2003-05-14 21:02 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-14 21:57 ` Greg KH
2003-05-14 22:21 ` chas williams
2003-05-15 5:20 ` Greg KH
2003-05-15 14:32 ` chas williams
2003-05-15 19:09 ` Greg KH
2003-05-15 19:17 ` chas williams
2003-05-20 12:25 ` Duncan Sands
2003-05-16 0:12 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-16 14:40 ` Duncan Sands
2003-05-16 15:39 ` chas williams
2003-05-16 18:48 ` Francois Romieu
2003-05-22 17:59 ` Linux 2.4 scheduler is RTOS-alike? Ming Lei
2003-05-22 20:01 ` Ming Lei
2003-05-22 20:37 ` Elladan
2003-05-22 20:47 ` Elladan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030522204735.GB4195@eskimo.com \
--to=elladan@eskimo.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=lei.ming@attbi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.