Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262070AbVATIGU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:06:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262071AbVATIGU (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:06:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:24487 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262070AbVATIGS (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:06:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:05:45 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Jack O'Quin" Cc: Chris Wright , Matt Mackall , Paul Davis , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Lee Revell , arjanv@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM Message-ID: <20050120080545.GA12665@elte.hu> References: <871xcmuuu4.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050116231307.GC24610@elte.hu> <87vf9xdj18.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050117100633.GA3311@elte.hu> <87llaruy6m.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050118080218.GB615@elte.hu> <87pt02pt0r.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050119082433.GE29037@elte.hu> <20050119143927.GA11950@elte.hu> <87651tmhwv.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87651tmhwv.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1004 Lines: 27 * Jack O'Quin wrote: > JACK actually uses three different priorities, the defaults are 9, 10 > and 20. How about if I change this test? > > if (prio <= 20 && policy != SCHED_NORMAL) { yeah, this is OK. 20 is used for the watchdog thread, right? (so it has minimal latency impact). What's the difference between prio 9 and 10 threads? You might want to map prio 9 ones to nice--15 and prio 10 ones to nice--20, if there's a real difference between them. But for the first test i'd suggest to use nice--20 for both. (to make sure SCHED_OTHER tasks interfere as rarely as possible.) > Or, should that be? > > if (prio > 0 && prio <= 20 && policy != SCHED_NORMAL) { 'prio' cannot get negative here, so the first test is just as fine. Ingo - 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/