On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:52:50 -0500 Jon Masters <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The general approach we've taken to this is "don't do that". Yes, we could
> > boost lots of kernel threads in the way which this patch does but this
> > actually takes control *away* from userspace. Userspace no longer has the
> > ability to guarantee itself minimum possible latency without getting
> > preempted by kernel threads.
> >
> > And yes, giving userspace this minimum-latency capability does imply that
> > userspace has a responsibility to not 100% starve kernel threads. It's a
> > reasonable compromise, I think?
>
> So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should be able to lock a system?
yup. root can damage the system in all sorts of ways.
> I guess I see both sides of this argument - yes, it's userspace at
> fault, but in other cases when userspace is at fault, we take action
> (OOM, segfault, others). Isn't this situation just another case where
> the kernel needs to avoid the evils of userland going awry?
Well... the problem is that if we add a safety net to catch run-away
SCHED_FIFO processes, we've permanently degraded the service which we
provide to well-behaved programs.
Should there be a watchdog which checks for a process which has run
realtime for a certain period and which then takes some action? Such as
descheduling it for a while, generating warnings, demoting its policy,
killing it etc?
--
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]
