Re: SCHED_YIELD again

Artur Skawina (skawina@geocities.com)
Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:55:21 +0100

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: locking question: do_mmap(), do_munmap()"
Previous message: Eric A. Skaug: "Trouble mounting a large drive."
Maybe in reply to: Borislav Deianov: "SCHED_YIELD again"

Borislav Deianov wrote:
>
> Oops. I assumed the new one is added at the end of the runqueue (as
> the man page says). In reality it's added at the beginning, see
> wake_up_process() and setscheduler(). This (the current behaviour) is
> wrong, according to "man sched_setscheduler". I don't have a copy of
> the relevant POSIX standard so I can't check there. That's easily

hmm. good point. anybody knows what posix says wrt the order of
scheduling RT processes with equal priority?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: locking question: do_mmap(), do_munmap()"
Previous message: Eric A. Skaug: "Trouble mounting a large drive."
Maybe in reply to: Borislav Deianov: "SCHED_YIELD again"