On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:51:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> no, i'm discussing precisely the point you raised:
Oh boy.
> >>> You should consider for a moment to allow for the binding of a
> >>> thread to a CPU to determine the behavior of a SCHED_FIFO class task
> >>> instead of creating a new run category. [...]
>
> with the observation that 1) binding is already possible [so your
> suggestion is apparently knocking on open doors] 2) binding is a
> separate mechanism (not adequate for all workloads) and it is thus
> orthogonal to what i'm trying to achieve with the "RT overload" stuff.
> Really simple and straightforward observations i think.
This is going to take some time to get the terminology right. It's
late now and I'll have to continue this tomorrow.
First thing's first, SCHED_FIFO_GLOBAL for what you want in the main
line is the same thing as SCHED_FIFO in -rt, right ?
bill
-
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/
[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]
