Re: Priority Inversion in Scheduling

[Mike Fedyk]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 06:42:10AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> At 02:23 AM 9/10/2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >Hi John,
> >Your mechanism is basically "backboost". Its how you get X to keep a
> >high piroirity, but quite unpredictable. Giving a boost to a process
> >holding a semaphore is an interesting idea, but it doesn't address the
> >X problem.
> 
> FWIW, I tried the hardware usage bonus thing, and it does cure the X 
> inversion problem (yeah,  it's a pretty cheezy way to do it).  It also 
> cures xmms skips if you can't get to the top without hw usage.  I also 
> tried a cpu limited backboost from/to tasks associated with hardware, and 
> it hasn't run amok... yet ;-)

Against which scheduler, and when are you going to post the patch?
-
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/