On 06 Aug 2007 13:11:01 +0200, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
> For IO I suppose the same could happen too. e.g. low priority
> task wants to write out a page and keeps it locked until the IO
> is finished. High priority task wants to access the page and has
> to wait until it is unlocked. Middle task generates an endless
> stream of IO that makes the idle priority writeout never finish.
I don't think it's a problem for high priority (RT) tasks - it's well
known in the real time Linux community that you never, ever do IO from
a thread that has to satisfy RT constraints. A correct RT linux app
does its IO from a SCHED_NORMAL thread, with *plenty* of buffering,
and feeds the RT constrained SCHED_FIFO threads using a lock free
ringbuffer.
SCHED_IDLE starving SCHED_NORMAL is an issue of course. But
SCHED_IDLE seems a lot more useful for read than write which I would
expect to take fewer locks. For example I'd expect Beagle to want to
read at SCHED_IDLE but write out its indices at SCHED_NORMAL.
Would it make any sense to allow anyone to set SCHED_IDLE for reads
but require root to change IO priority for writes?
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]
