From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Ted Baker <baker@cs.fsu.edu>
Cc: raj@ece.cmu.edu, jayhawk@soe.ucsc.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
raistlin@linux.it, niehaus@ittc.ku.edu, henrik@austad.us,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
billh@gnuppy.monkey.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
fabio@gandalf.sssup.it, anderson@cs.unc.edu, tglx@linutronix.de,
dhaval.giani@gmail.com, cucinotta@sssup.it,
lipari@retis.sssup.it, baker.tlh@comcast.net
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel]
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:29:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100426182903.GA14542@8bytes.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100426115658.GA21346@cs.fsu.edu>
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:56:58AM -0400, Ted Baker wrote:
> I have not seen any more e-mail on this. How is it going? Is there any
> chance of rolling in some corrections for the SCHED_SPORADIC treatment? In
> particular, could we have a DO_NOT_RUN priority, that is guaranteed to
> prevent a task from running at all?
Sorry for asking a maybe stupid question, but what is this good for and
what is the benefit over SIGSTOP?
Joerg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-26 18:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-26 11:56 [Fwd: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel] Ted Baker
2010-04-26 18:29 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2010-04-26 18:37 ` Doug Niehaus
2010-05-03 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-03 15:54 ` Ted Baker
2010-05-03 16:13 ` Ted Baker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-07-16 19:41 Raj Rajkumar
[not found] <4A5F7254.3020809@ece.cmu.edu>
2009-07-16 19:18 ` James H. Anderson
[not found] ` <4A5F806D.6040701@ece.cmu.edu>
2009-07-16 19:46 ` James H. Anderson
2009-07-16 20:47 ` Raj Rajkumar
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=20100426182903.GA14542@8bytes.org \
--to=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=anderson@cs.unc.edu \
--cc=baker.tlh@comcast.net \
--cc=baker@cs.fsu.edu \
--cc=billh@gnuppy.monkey.org \
--cc=cucinotta@sssup.it \
--cc=dhaval.giani@gmail.com \
--cc=fabio@gandalf.sssup.it \
--cc=henrik@austad.us \
--cc=jayhawk@soe.ucsc.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lipari@retis.sssup.it \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niehaus@ittc.ku.edu \
--cc=raistlin@linux.it \
--cc=raj@ece.cmu.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).