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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox