[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080108105428.2fb04bdd@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:54:28 +0100
From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 09:29:56 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
It's "runtime since last sleep" so it is useful.
I still think the kthread patch is good to have anyway. The user can
have other reasons to change kthreadd's priority/cpumask.
Michal
--
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