Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:38:04 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq + io priorities |
| |
Hi!
> > At least idle class can not be used to hold important semaphore > > forever (even low-priority prosses receive enough time not to hold > > important semaphores too long)... I believe you should do the same (== > > get rid of idle class for now, and clearly state that realtime ones > > are not _guaranteed_ anything). > > That's not doing something about it, that's giving up...
:-) Yes. That's what we do for scheduler, already. [And its better to give up than to have DoS security hole, right?]
> You could allow idle prio to proceed, if it holds a resource that could > potentially block others.
I guess you can't push this for 2.6. And notice that we use same solution for cpu scheduler, where solution is quite easy (with no hot-paths overhead). Pavel -- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - 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/
| |