Re: 2.5.74-mm1

[William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:04:11AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Thinking strictly about the needs of sound processing, what's needed is a 
> guarantee of so much cpu time each time the timer fires, and a user limit to 
> prevent cpu hogging.  It's worth pondering the difference between that and 
> rate-of-forward-progress.  I suspect some simple improvements to the current 
> scheduler can be made to do the job, and at the same time, avoid the 
> priorty-based starvation issue that seems to have been practically mandated 
> by POSIX.

Such scheduling policies are called "isochronous".


-- wli