Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
> Have you seen RT threads trying to disk IO 'in the wild'
I'd be surprised, to be sure.
> or is this a
> theoretical concern? I don't know of any such apps.
Is it hard to do? If not, as this isn't forbidden as such, it makes sense
IMVHO.
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
-
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]
