>> I already have something like that. It's a modification of how niceness
>> values are interpreted.
>Wasn't there a problem with kernel locks though?
The patch works here (1 cpu) without a single problem so far. I didn't
care to much about trying to avoid races or so, just made sure the
patch fits into the already existing locking stuff.
Of course, one deadlock might be:
- a low priority process gets (owns?) a lock
- a normal process gets into an endless loop before the low priority
process returns the lock. This totally locks the low priority
process.
Now every normal process waiting on that lock sleeps forever. I never
experienced such a problem so far so I didn't care about it. It might
be good to give every process at least a minimal amount of the cpu so
the system can escape those situations.
Ciao,
Peter
--
_ x ___
/ \_/_\_ /,--' p.steiner@t-online.de (Peter Steiner)
\/>'~~~~//
\_____/ signature V0.2 alpha
-
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/