Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.74-mm1 | Date | Sun, 6 Jul 2003 04:14:34 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday 06 July 2003 03:28, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > What are you going to do if you have one > > application you want to take priority, re-nice the other 50? > > Is that effective? It might be just the trick.
Point.
> > > Something I've often thought would fix this is to allow normal users > > > to set negative priority which is limited to using X% of the CPU - > > > i.e. those tasks would have their priority raised if they spent more > > > than a small proportion of their time using the CPU. > > > > That's essentially SCHED_RR. As I mentioned above, it's not clear > > to me why SCHED_RR requires superuser privilege, since the amount of > > CPU you can burn that way is bounded. Well, the total of all > > SCHED_RR processes would need to be bounded as well, which is > > straightforward. > > Your last point is most important. At the moment, a SCHED_RR process > with a bug will basically lock up the machine, which is totally > inappropriate for a user app.
How does the lockup come about? As defined, a single SCHED_RR process could lock up only its own slice of CPU, as far as I can see.
Regards,
Daniel
- 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/
| |