Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261282AbVDSXjV (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261303AbVDSXjV (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:21 -0400 Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]:4309 "EHLO zcars04e.ca.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261282AbVDSXjN (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:39:13 -0400 Message-ID: <42659673.9080901@nortel.com> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:38:27 -0600 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Hancock CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: question on 2.4 scheduler, threads, and priority inversion References: <3V45v-tx-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <426594B1.9000307@shaw.ca> In-Reply-To: <426594B1.9000307@shaw.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 777 Lines: 20 Robert Hancock wrote: > I believe that in the old LinuxThreads implementation the manager thread > is the one that handles all signals, so it may need its priority > increased as well. NPTL threads likely handle this much better (there is > no manager thread). Some experimenting leads me to believe that both the main thread and the manager thread must be of higher priority than the cpu hogging thread, otherwise priority inversion issues occur. I was fairly shocked that even a "kill -9" failed to work though... Chris - 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/