Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262415AbVAZKJi (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:09:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262413AbVAZKJi (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:09:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:60843 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262415AbVAZKJA (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:09:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:08:46 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Williams Cc: "Jack O'Quin" , Paul Davis , Con Kolivas , linux , rlrevell@joe-job.com, CK Kernel , utz , Andrew Morton , alexn@dsv.su.se, Rui Nuno Capela , Chris Wright , Arjan van de Ven , Nick Piggin Subject: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU feature, -D7 Message-ID: <20050126100846.GB8720@elte.hu> References: <87y8eo9hed.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050120172506.GA20295@elte.hu> <87wtu6fho8.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050122165458.GA14426@elte.hu> <87hdl940ph.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050124085902.GA8059@elte.hu> <20050124125814.GA31471@elte.hu> <20050125135613.GA18650@elte.hu> <41F6C5CE.9050303@bigpond.net.au> <41F6C797.80403@bigpond.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41F6C797.80403@bigpond.net.au> 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: 1025 Lines: 26 * Peter Williams wrote: > Oops, after rereading the patch, a task that set its RT_CPU_RATIO > rlimit to zero wouldn't be escaping the mechanism at all. It would be > suffering maximum throttling. [...] my intention was to let 'limit 0' mean 'old RT semantics' - i.e. 'no RT CPU time for unprivileged tasks at all', and only privileged tasks may do it and then they'll get full CPU time with no throttling. so in that context your observation highlights another bug, which i fixed in the -D7 patch available from the usual place: http://redhat.com/~mingo/rt-limit-patches/ not doing the '0' exception would make it harder to introduce the rlimit in a compatible fashion. (My current thinking is that the default RT_CPU rlimit should be 0.) 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/