Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:27:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:27:24 -0500 Received: from cisco7500-mainGW.gts.cz ([194.213.32.131]:4100 "EHLO bug.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 10:27:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20010309122618.A449@bug.ucw.cz> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 12:26:18 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Boris Dragovic , Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE? In-Reply-To: <20010307202027.B27421@ugly.wh8.tu-dresden.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93i In-Reply-To: ; from Boris Dragovic on Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:29:06PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock? > > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes > > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically > > undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually > > just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear, > > as mark suggested. > > would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock so that > they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave other to be executed > when processor really idle? There was implementation which promoted SCHED_IDLE task to normal priority whenever it entered syscall. I liked it. Pavel -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - 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/