Subject: Re: [patch] setscheduler fix
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Joe Korty <joe.korty@ccur.com>
Cc: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
       "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>,
       "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@digeo.com>,
       "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "'mingo@elte.hu'" <mingo@elte.hu>, "Li, Adam" <adam.li@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030619182057.GA1228@rudolph.ccur.com>
References: <A46BBDB345A7D5118EC90002A5072C780DD16DB0@orsmsx116.jf.intel.com>
	 <3EF1DE35.20402@mvista.com> <20030619171950.GA936@rudolph.ccur.com>
	 <1056044732.8770.39.camel@localhost>
	 <20030619182057.GA1228@rudolph.ccur.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1056047890.1066.22.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 19 Jun 2003 11:38:10 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 974
Lines: 28

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/