[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080107092956.419b5f91.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:29:56 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: always create the kernel threads with normal
priority
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:09:04 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > > This causes a practical problem. When a runaway real-time task is
> > > eating 100% CPU and we attempt to put the CPU offline, sometimes we
> > > block while waiting for the creation of the highest-priority
> > > "kstopmachine" thread.
>
> sched-devel.git has new mechanisms against runaway RT tasks. There's a
> new RLIMIT_RTTIME rlimit - if an RT task exceeds that rlimit then it is
> sent SIGXCPU.
Is that "total RT CPU time" or "elapsed time since last schedule()"?
If the former, it is not useful for this problem.
> there's also a new group scheduling extension that is driven via a
> sysctl:
>
> /proc/sys/kernel/sched_rt_ratio
>
> this way if a user has a runaway RT task, other users (and root) will
> still have some CPU time left. (in Peter's latest patchset that is
> replaced via rt_runtime_ns - but this is a detail)
Doesn't this make the RT task non-RT? Would need to understand more
details to tell.
> so instead of the never-ending arms race of kernel thread priorities
> against RT task priorities, we are going towards making RT tasks safer
> on a policy level.
>
> Ingo
--
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