Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:52:28 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>, Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@redhat.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
       Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: run kthreadd with max priority SCHED_FIFO
Message-Id: <20071222025228.02905a01.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1198319970.5509.10.camel@homer.simson.net>
References: <20071217234314.540b59bd@hammerfall>
	<20071222013021.db2528cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<1198317171.24423.47.camel@perihelion>
	<1198319970.5509.10.camel@homer.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 950
Lines: 24

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100 Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 

That's pretty different of course, but rlimit might be a suitable interface
for implementing RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS.

--
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/