Re: [PATCH] sched: Add SCHED_BGND (background) scheduling policy

Nick Piggin
2006-07-05T17:40:55Z

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>>Of course, a comprehensive (as opposed to RT only) priority
>>inheritance mechanism would make the "safe/unsafe to background"
>>problem go away and make this patch very simple. Any plans in that
>>direction?
>
>
> that seems quite unlikely to happen. I think you are missing the biggest
> issue: for RT, if the priority inheritance mechanism does not extend to
> a given scheduling pattern it causes longer latencies, but no harm is
> done otherwise. But for SCHED_BGND we'd have to make sure _every_ place
> is priority-inversions safe - otherwise we risk a potential local DoS if
> a task with a critical resource is backgrounded! That's plain impossible
> to achieve.

Right. And it isn't just straightforward things like locks, but
any limited resource.

mempools and block device requests are two that come to mind.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com