From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Wessel Dankers <wsl@fruit.eu.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler priorities
Date: 28 Mar 2002 02:29:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1017300610.17515.229.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020328070855.GB514@fruit.eu.org>
On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 02:08, Wessel Dankers wrote:
> Well evidently it should be root-only, just like SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO.
> If the priority inversion issues are worked out this restriction could be
> removed. I remember discussing this problem with Rik van Riel.
> The kernel-preempt patch seems to be able to detect when a process holds a
> lock; perhaps the process scheduler can temporarily revert to SCHED_NORMAL
> when this is the case? Preferably with a large nice value.
The preempt-kernel patch does keep track of the lock count, but it does
not include semaphores and those are what we need to worry about.
I also don't think it is enough that SCHED_IDLE only be settable by
root. Regardless of what permissions it takes to set the scheduling
class, a "SCHED_IDLE" task should never be capable of harming an RT
task.
One solution I have come across is checking whether the task is
returning to kernel or user mode and acting appropriately. As needed,
the task can be scheduled as SCHED_NORMAL. This situation could even be
special-cased like ptrace and not impact normal scheduling. Perhaps
this is what Ingo had in mind ... I hope he is still interested and
presents some code.
I know all this because I tried to implement SCHED_IDLE about a year
ago. There were arguments against every approach, and SCHED_IDLE will
never be accepted until they are all satisfied. If we want it, it needs
to be done right.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-28 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-26 11:41 Scheduler priorities Nuno Miguel Rodrigues
2002-03-26 17:55 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-03-27 9:41 ` Frank Schaefer
2002-03-27 13:06 ` Nuno Miguel Rodrigues
2002-03-27 13:41 ` Robert Love
2002-03-27 20:23 ` Wessel Dankers
2002-03-27 21:14 ` Robert Love
2002-03-28 7:08 ` Wessel Dankers
2002-03-28 7:29 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-03-29 21:42 ` Pavel Machek
2002-03-29 23:52 ` Robert Love
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=1017300610.17515.229.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsl@fruit.eu.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox