Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: low priority soft RT? | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:41:53 +0200 (MEST) | From | (Rogier Wolff) |
| |
David Schleef wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 1999 at 09:25:12PM -0500, cd_smith@ou.edu wrote: > > Anyone thought about allowing soft RT (SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR) tasks with > > negative priorities? These would only be executed if no other tasks of > > any type are there. Giving a normal Linux task a niceness value won't do > > this, as the task will still get some CPU time. > > > > I was just thinking back to past projects, and about a year ago I wished I > > had something like this to do background housekeeping tasks for a > > distributed application I was writing -- I wanted to do them if possible > > on a free system, and only schedule time on some system if they didn't get > > scheduled anyway. > > > > Since I'm sure this isn't a new idea, any good reasons not to allow this? > > (surely there can't be security implications, right?) I'm not really > > interested in doing it myself right now, but I might in the future if > > there aren't good reasons otherwise.
Chris, I worked on a Unix system a long time ago ('86), and there they defined "nice 19" to be "when nobody else wants the CPU". That was a VERY handy system. For example: rc5des would not consume the 3-5% of the CPU of my system when I'm actually doing something CPUbound.
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* ------ Microsoft SELLS you Windows, Linux GIVES you the whole house ------
- 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/
| |