On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:07:42PM +1100, Nick Piggin ([email protected]) wrote:
> >Doesn't the provided solution is just a in-kernel variant of the
> >SCHED_FIFO set from userspace? Why kernel should be able to mark some
> >users as having higher priority?
> >What if workload of the system is targeted to not the maximum TCP
> >performance, but maximum other-task performance, which will be broken
> >with provided patch.
>
> David's line of thinking for a solution sounds better to me. This patch
> does not prevent the process from being preempted (for potentially a long
> time), by any means.
It steals timeslices from other processes to complete tcp_recvmsg()
task, and only when it does it for too long, it will be preempted.
Processing backlog queue on behalf of need_resched() will break fairness
too - processing itself can take a lot of time, so process can be
scheduled away in that part too.
> --
> SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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]
