Re: low priority soft RT?

yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 08:31:45 -0600

On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 04:25:21PM +0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Sure. If you have a bunch of normal, interactive and niced
> processes, then a high-priority process can wait for over a
> second before a lock (held by a niced process) is released
> and the high-priority process can continue.
>
> Now, if we would follow Linus' idea and extend the range
> of niced processes, that time span could increase to 10 or
> even more seconds, effectively producing the same kind of
> 'deadlock' that SCHED_IDLE can produce -- only with an upper
> bound to it...

I'm one of those old fashioned people who thinks that a deadlock
with an upper bound is much better than one without.

> Then throw in SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO processes and you're
> gone.

But SCHED_RR is a problem on its own, is it not?

setsched(SCHED_RR)
while(i < 100 ){
g = g+1;
/* oops, I forgot to increment i*/
}

And inetd never runs again.

>
> Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ |
> | Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ |
> | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
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/