Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: run kthreadd with max priority SCHED_FIFO
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       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: <1198317171.24423.47.camel@perihelion>
References: <20071217234314.540b59bd@hammerfall>
	 <20071222013021.db2528cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	 <1198317171.24423.47.camel@perihelion>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100
Message-Id: <1198319970.5509.10.camel@homer.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 727
Lines: 23


On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 04:52 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:

> So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should be able to lock a system?
> I guess I see both sides of this argument - yes, it's userspace at
> fault, but in other cases when userspace is at fault, we take action
> (OOM, segfault, others). Isn't this situation just another case where
> the kernel needs to avoid the evils of userland going awry?

FYI, Ingo queued the below.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/31/344

	-Mike


--
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/