Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261505AbVAMBKJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:10:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261428AbVAMBH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:07:28 -0500 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:1732 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261487AbVALVvy (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:51:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM From: Lee Revell To: Matt Mackall Cc: Paul Davis , Chris Wright , "Jack O'Quin" , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , arjanv@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050112190949.GH2940@waste.org> References: <20050111230642.GD2940@waste.org> <200501120213.j0C2DjGO008084@localhost.localdomain> <20050112190949.GH2940@waste.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:25:58 -0500 Message-Id: <1105565159.3357.11.camel@krustophenia.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1627 Lines: 38 On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 11:09 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:13:44PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > > >A client starts at normal priority, asks jack nicely to promote it to > > >RT, then jackd, if so configured/enabled, calls the wrapper with a PID > > > > a PID? clients are multithreaded, and only specific threads run with > > RT scheduling (normally just the one created for them by > > libjack). So you presumably mean a TID, which in turn creates a > > problem for any system (e.g. 2.4) where all threads share the PID, and > > sched_setscheduler() really does use the PID as a PID, not a TID. > > That actually sounds like an independent API problem. > What's your point? It has to work on 2.4, so this is not a feasible solution. > > but its gets worse. JACK clients need to drop RT scheduling under > > certain, well-defined circumstances. how do they get it back under > > this scheme? > > Assuming a more thread-aware API, they just ask for privileges again. > But with the non-thread-aware API, my first reaction would be the thread in > question clones, and the clone drops privileges. > Clones? Seems pretty inefficient compared to having a simple mechanism for root to grant users the ability to run RT tasks. We have such a system now, and it works perfectly, so any solution that makes people jump through hoops will be rejected. Lee - 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/