Re: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question

[Mike Galbraith]

At 03:18 PM 8/16/2003 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > At 01:54 AM 8/16/2003 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > >None of these will work well if "wakee" tasks are able to run
> > >immediately after being woken, before "waker" tasks get a chance to
> > >either block or put the wakees back to sleep.
> >
> > Sounds like another scheduler class (SCHED_NOPREEMPT) would be required.
>
> If something special were to be added, it should be a way for a task
> to say "If I call schedule() and block, don't do a schedule, just
> continue my timeslice in task X".
>
> The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an
> asynchronous fashion, after all.  A proper task scheduling is
> inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and
> continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request.

Ok, so you'd want a class where you could register an "exception handler" 
prior to submitting a system call, and any subsequent schedule would be 
treated as an exception?  (they'd have to be nestable exceptions too 
right?... <imagines stack explosions> egad:)

> The interesting part is what to do when the original task (the one
> that went to sleep) wakes up.

Yeah.

        -Mike 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/