Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] setscheduler fix | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 19 Jun 2003 11:38:10 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 11:20, Joe Korty wrote:
> Looks good to me.
Good.
> migration_thread and try_to_wake_up already have a simplier version of > your test that seems to be correct for that environment, so no change > is needed there. > > wake_up_forked_process in principle might need your patch, but as it > appears to be called only from boot code it is unimportant that it > have the lowest possible latency, so no change is needed there either.
Agreed.
This is worse than just a latency issue, by the way. Imagine if a FIFO/50 thread promotes a FIFO/40 thread to FIFO/60. The thread should run immediately (because, at priority 60, it is the highest), but it may not until the FIFO/50 thread completes.
Robert Love
- 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/
| |