On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
>
> > is going to be an enormously important issue. However, once you add SCHED_FIFO in the
> > current scheme, this becomes more complex. And with preempt, you cannot even offer the
> > assurance that once a process gets the cpu it will make _any_ advance at all.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but how is this related to
> preempt?
It's pretty subtle. If there is no preempt, processes don't get preempted.
If there is preempt, they can be preempted. Amazing isn't it?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:45 EST