Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: run kthreadd with max priority SCHED_FIFO
From: Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071222021135.68becd45.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20071217234314.540b59bd@hammerfall>
	 <20071222013021.db2528cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <1198317171.24423.47.camel@perihelion>
	 <20071222021135.68becd45.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:18:16 -0500
Message-Id: <1198318696.24423.64.camel@perihelion>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 890
Lines: 22

On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 02:11 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Should there be a watchdog which checks for a process which has run
> realtime for a certain period and which then takes some action?  Such as
> descheduling it for a while, generating warnings, demoting its policy,
> killing it etc?

Using the analogy of the OOM killer being called, this wouldn't be a bad
idea IMO - especially if it were configurable, and off by default. This
couldn't be done in a kernel thread (unless some new priority level were
created for it), but I think the details can be worked out later.

Michal - what do you think is the best upstream solution?

Jon.


--
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/