[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070508041033.GB25030@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 09:40:33 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime processes
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:29:19PM +0900, Satoru Takeuchi wrote:
> > We used to be able to create kernel threads higher than any userspace
> > priority. If this is no longer true, I think that's OK: equal priority
> > still means we'll get scheduled, right?
>
> IF SCHED_RR, yes. However, if SCHED_FIFO, no. Such process doen't have timeslice
> and only relinquish CPU time voluntarily.
yeah ..this is truly a problem if SCHED_FIFO user-space cpu hog task is
running at MAX_USER_RT_PRIO (which happens to be same as max real-time
priority kernel threads can attain - MAX_RT_PRIO).
One option is to make MAX_USER_RT_PRIO < MAX_RT_PRIO. I am not sure what
semantics that will break (perhaps the real-time folks can clarify
that).
The other easier option is to add a wake_up_process_to_front() API in
sched.c, which essentially wakes up the process and enqueues the task to
the front of runqueue.
> # Hence this problem is complicated ;-(
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists