On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 10:10 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Saturday 03 June 2006 03:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Not sure. RT io needs to be considered carefully, but I guess so does RT
> > CPU scheduling. For now I'd prefer to play it a little safer, and only
> > inheric the priority value and not the class.
>
> The problem I envisioned with that was that realtime tasks, if they don't
> specify an io priority (as most current code doesn't), would basically get io
> priority 4 and have the same proportion as any nice 0 SCHED_NORMAL task
> whereas -nice tasks automatically are getting better io priority. How about
> givent them normal class but best priority so they are at least getting the
> same as nice -20?
>
Con,
Have you seen RT threads trying to disk IO 'in the wild' or is this a
theoretical concern? I don't know of any such apps.
Lee
-
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]
