Re: 2.5.74-mm1

From: Daniel Phillips (
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 21:14:34 EST

On Sunday 06 July 2003 03:28, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > What are you going to do if you have one
> > application you want to take priority, re-nice the other 50?
> Is that effective? It might be just the trick.


> > > Something I've often thought would fix this is to allow normal users
> > > to set negative priority which is limited to using X% of the CPU -
> > > i.e. those tasks would have their priority raised if they spent more
> > > than a small proportion of their time using the CPU.
> >
> > That's essentially SCHED_RR. As I mentioned above, it's not clear
> > to me why SCHED_RR requires superuser privilege, since the amount of
> > CPU you can burn that way is bounded. Well, the total of all
> > SCHED_RR processes would need to be bounded as well, which is
> > straightforward.
> Your last point is most important. At the moment, a SCHED_RR process
> with a bug will basically lock up the machine, which is totally
> inappropriate for a user app.

How does the lockup come about? As defined, a single SCHED_RR process could
lock up only its own slice of CPU, as far as I can see.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:26 EST