Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:05:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:05:18 -0500 Received: from brutus.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.146]:33266 "EHLO brutus.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:05:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:04:00 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Oswald Buddenhagen cc: Subject: Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? In-Reply-To: <20010307184000.A26594@ugly.wh8.tu-dresden.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > i found, that linux is missing a static low-priority scheduling class > (or did i miss something? in this case feel free to stomp me into the > ground :). it would be ideal for typical number-crunchers running in > the background like the different distributed.net-like clients. The problem with these things it that sometimes such a task may hold a lock, which can prevent higher-priority tasks from running. A solution would be to make sure that these tasks get at least one time slice every 3 seconds or so, so they can release any locks they might be holding and the system as a whole won't livelock. regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/