Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263246AbTEVUeo (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2003 16:34:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263250AbTEVUeo (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2003 16:34:44 -0400 Received: from mail.eskimo.com ([204.122.16.4]:47371 "EHLO mail.eskimo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263246AbTEVUen (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2003 16:34:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:47:35 -0700 To: Ming Lei Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Elladan , efault@gmx.de Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 scheduler is RTOS-alike? Message-ID: <20030522204735.GB4195@eskimo.com> References: <200305142020.h4EKK9J01052@relax.cmf.nrl.navy.mil> <20030514205949.GA3945@kroah.com> <004601c3209c$f0739700$0305a8c0@arch.sel.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004601c3209c$f0739700$0305a8c0@arch.sel.sony.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Elladan Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1492 Lines: 33 Also of note, FIFO threads will actually block the same priority threads forever. An RR thread will also block a lower priority thread forever, but it'll get preempted by other RR threads with the same priority. A FIFO thread is never preempted except by higher priority, it has to yield somehow (explicitly or by blocking) -J On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:01:30PM -0700, Ming Lei wrote: > > will it be the same behavior If thread A and thread B both have a lot of > printf? Suppose A get first run, does B get run at all? > > > this question is regarding linux kernel 2.4.7-2.4.20. > > linux 2.4 kernel does support real time sheduler. If using FIFO real time > > schedule policy, would the case that higher priority thread starve the > lower > > priority thread happen? Similarly, let's say an example: if I have higher > > prioority thread A and lower priority thread B, thread A is running > without > > any wait or blocking, is there a possiblity that 2.4 scheduler may want to > > switch to thread B? Why? > > Yes, FIFO threads that spin will block lower priority threads forever. > > Sure, guaranteed if the high prio SCHED_FIFO task doesn't block at all. If > you have a pure cpu burner, it will starve all lower priority > threads. - 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/