* Esben Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I took a brief look at it. Have you tested priority inheritance?
yeah, you are right, it's broken at the moment, i'll fix it. But the
good news is that i think PI could become cleaner via scheduling
classes.
> As far as I can see rt_mutex_setprio doesn't have much effect on
> SCHED_FAIR/SCHED_BATCH. I am looking for a place where such a task
> change scheduler class when boosted in rt_mutex_setprio().
i think via scheduling classes we dont have to do the p->policy and
p->prio based gymnastics anymore, we can just have a clean look at
p->sched_class and stack the original scheduling class into
p->real_sched_class. It would probably also make sense to 'privatize'
p->prio into the scheduling class. That way PI would be a pure property
of sched_rt, and the PI scheduler would be driven purely by
p->rt_priority, not by p->prio. That way all the normal_prio() kind of
complications and interactions with SCHED_OTHER/SCHED_FAIR would be
eliminated as well. What do you think?
Ingo
-
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]
