Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262811AbVAKUub (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:50:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262743AbVAKUua (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:50:30 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:60385 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262169AbVAKUuK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:50:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:50:08 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Matt Mackall Cc: Paul Davis , "Jack O'Quin" , Chris Wright , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Lee Revell , arjanv@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM Message-ID: <20050111125008.K10567@build.pdx.osdl.net> References: <20050110212019.GG2995@waste.org> <200501111305.j0BD58U2000483@localhost.localdomain> <20050111191701.GT2940@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20050111191701.GT2940@waste.org>; from mpm@selenic.com on Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:17:02AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1337 Lines: 28 * Matt Mackall (mpm@selenic.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 08:05:08AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > I am not sure what you mean here. I think we've established that > > SCHED_OTHER cannot be made adequate for realtime audio work. Its > > intended purpose (timesharing the machine in ways that should > > generally benefit tasks that don't do a lot and/or are dominated by > > user interaction, thus rendering the machine apparently responsive) is > > really at odds with what we need. > > We have not established that at all. In principle, because SCHED_OTHER > tasks running at full priority lie on the boundary between SCHED_OTHER > and SCHED_FIFO, they can be made to run arbitrarily close to the > performance of tasks in SCHED_FIFO. With the upside that they won't be > able to deadlock the machine. I don't think they lie quite so neatly on this boundary. There's one fundamental difference which is how the dynamic priority is adjusted which alters the basic preemptibility rules. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/