[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081120081924.GB4349@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:49:24 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Don't allow priority switch to realtime when
the task doesn't belong to init_task_group and when
CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED isn't set
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 08:58:29AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> <snip>
> hm, another option would be, instead of denying something (which
> denial might not even be noticed by the app) that the app clearly has
> enough privilege to request - to just act upon it and move the task to
> the init_task_group?
Thought about that option, but decided against it because:
- The task was started in a group which is not "equipped" to handle
rt tasks (no rt_rq for the group because CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED=n). So
the task shouldn't have been started in such a group in the first
place.
- We could move the task silently to init_task_group (which is kind
of done now with the task being placed in init_task_group's rq), but
that's not what a user would have expected when he started a task
under a group.
Also, silently moving the task to init_task_group would cause confusion
later when the task drops the RT privilege. As Dhaval is asking in the
other thread, which group do we move it to now ?
Regards,
Bharata.
--
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