Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755150AbXLWIu1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:50:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751855AbXLWIuP (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:50:15 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59967 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751007AbXLWIuO (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:50:14 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18FwolNPuAFxm7fv1p4UtNx5hdpLTOhGakn+cTf/y iK5+bolw7N+psg Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: run kthreadd with max priority SCHED_FIFO From: Mike Galbraith To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jon Masters , Michal Schmidt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Satoru Takeuchi In-Reply-To: <20071222025228.02905a01.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20071217234314.540b59bd@hammerfall> <20071222013021.db2528cb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1198317171.24423.47.camel@perihelion> <1198319970.5509.10.camel@homer.simson.net> <20071222025228.02905a01.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:50:15 +0100 Message-Id: <1198399815.11322.74.camel@homer.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1331 Lines: 33 On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 02:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100 Mike Galbraith 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. I'd extend Peter's rt safety net instead: mark for forced requeue when the soft limit is hit, or add that as an intermediate stage. Possibly add a demotion stage as well. I wouldn't try to select lower priority tasks, which RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS implies to me. -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/