On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 14:17:44 +0100 (CET), Rik van Riel
<H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl> said:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Richard Gooch wrote:
>> Here we don't get deadlock, but we do get lockouts while the nice 19
>> process goes to sleep holding a resource lock. Eventually the user
>> processes will get access to the FS again, but only after a long wait.
> Andrea, Victor, what should we do about this, instead
> of ridiculing things like SCHED_{FIFO,RR,IDLE} in the
> normal kernel?
> Maybe something like a flag (p->locks_held) which
> is upped on every lock acquired and lowered on each
> lock unlocked?
The easiest way is simply to avoid respecting SCHED_IDLE for processes
in D state. If we are in S or R state, we can pretty much guarantee we
are not holding any critical locks. (Is this actually violated
anywhere? I can't think of any exceptions, but there may be some.)
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/