Re: [patch 2.6.16-mm2 10/9] sched throttle tree extract - kill interactive task feedback loop

On Thursday 06 April 2006 14:10, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 09:15 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 April 2006 03:38, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > -	if (!rt_task(next) && interactive_sleep(next->sleep_type)) {
> > > +	if (!TASK_INTERACTIVE(next) && interactive_sleep(next->sleep_type)) {
> >
> > You can't remove that rt_task check from there can you? We shouldn't ever
> > requeue a rt task.
>
> RT tasks are always interactive aren't they?  (I'll check)

No, they're always equal to their static_prio. This rt_task check was added 
originally because it was found to inappropriately be requeueing SCHED_FIFO 
tasks.

Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch 2.6.16-mm2 0/9] sched throttle tree extract
    • From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2.6.16-mm2 10/9] sched throttle tree extract - kill interactive task feedback loop
    • From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2.6.16-mm2 10/9] sched throttle tree extract - kill interactive task feedback loop
    • From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Q on audit, audit-syscall
• Next by Date: Re: Respin: [PATCH] mm: limit lowmem_reserve
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2.6.16-mm2 10/9] sched throttle tree extract - kill interactive task feedback loop
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 2.6.16-mm2 5/9] sched throttle tree extract - correct idle sleep logic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]