Re: 2.5.74-mm1

William Lee Irwin III
2003-07-11T01:08:12Z

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