* Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course, a comprehensive (as opposed to RT only) priority inheritance mechanism would make the "safe/unsafe to background" problem go away and make this patch very simple. Any plans in that direction?
that seems quite unlikely to happen. I think you are missing the biggest issue: for RT, if the priority inheritance mechanism does not extend to a given scheduling pattern it causes longer latencies, but no harm is done otherwise. But for SCHED_BGND we'd have to make sure _every_ place is priority-inversions safe - otherwise we risk a potential local DoS if a task with a critical resource is backgrounded! That's plain impossible to achieve.