Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:26:18 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? |
| |
Hi!
> > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock? > > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes > > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically > > undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually > > just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear, > > as mark suggested. > > would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock so that > they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave other to be executed > when processor really idle?
There was implementation which promoted SCHED_IDLE task to normal priority whenever it entered syscall. I liked it. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |