From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: "Bhavesh P. Davda" <bhavesh@avaya.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR scheduler fix, kernel 2.4.18
Date: 13 Jun 2002 14:24:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1024003481.6704.98.camel@sinai> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D090B4D.4060104@avaya.com>
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 14:14, Bhavesh P. Davda wrote:
> No I haven't. What prompted me to go with the kernel.org 2.4.18 kernel
> is the fact that the RedHat 7.3 2.4.18-3 kernel, with your O(1)
> scheduler patches besides hundreds of other patches any of which might
> also have changed the scheduler, doesn't honour SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR
> real-time priorities at all.
Huh? It certainly should...
> I would think that the logical place to add any process to the runqueue
> would be the back of the runqueue. If all processes are ALWAYS added to
> the back of the runqueue, then every process is GUARANTEED to eventually
> be scheduled. No process will be starved indefinitely.
You are entirely right, but Ingo's point is very valid: changing wakeup
behavior is risky and is not ideal in the middle of 2.4.
Fixing major bugs is fine for 2.4, but changing behavior to suit an
ideal is not. Now is your chance to do so for 2.5, however.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-13 21:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-12 16:19 [PATCH] SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR scheduler fix, kernel 2.4.18 Bhavesh P. Davda
2002-06-13 18:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-13 21:14 ` Bhavesh P. Davda
2002-06-13 21:24 ` Robert Love [this message]
2002-06-13 21:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-13 21:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-06-13 22:11 ` Richard Seaman, Jr.
2002-06-13 22:43 ` Bhavesh P. Davda
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=1024003481.6704.98.camel@sinai \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=bhavesh@avaya.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/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