Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
Of course, a comprehensive (as opposed to RT only) priority
inheritance mechanism would make the "safe/unsafe to background"
problem go away and make this patch very simple. Any plans in that
direction?
that seems quite unlikely to happen. I think you are missing the biggest
issue: for RT, if the priority inheritance mechanism does not extend to
a given scheduling pattern it causes longer latencies, but no harm is
done otherwise. But for SCHED_BGND we'd have to make sure _every_ place
is priority-inversions safe - otherwise we risk a potential local DoS if
a task with a critical resource is backgrounded! That's plain impossible
to achieve.
Right. And it isn't just straightforward things like locks, but
any limited resource.
mempools and block device requests are two that come to mind.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
