Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@one-eyed-alien.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:24:44AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 05:00 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > The question is, what is the best way to handle this. I'm guessing that
> > > increasing the priority of the usb-storage control thread will help, but
> > > that's just a guess. I'm not even sure how to go about doing that, tho...
> >
> > A kernel thread in the block io path has to have a higher priority than
> > any user task. Otherwise a priority inversion is possible.
>
> Reasonable. So, other than renice at the command line, how does one go
> about setting this?
Try this patch. The loop device thread is doing the same thing.
diff -puN drivers/usb/storage/usb.c~usb-priority drivers/usb/storage/usb.c
--- linux/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c~usb-priority Sun Jul 27 10:56:02 2003
+++ linux-petero/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c Sun Jul 27 10:56:47 2003
@@ -302,6 +302,8 @@ static int usb_stor_control_thread(void
current->flags |= PF_IOTHREAD;
+ set_user_nice(current, -20);
+
unlock_kernel();
/* signal that we've started the thread */
-- Peter Osterlund - petero2@telia.com http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340 - 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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:31 EST