[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A09B7A1.2060706@sonarnerd.net>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 20:53:37 +0300
From: Jussi Laako <jussi@...arnerd.net>
To: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
James Courtier-Dutton <James@...erbug.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
d.faggioli@...up.it
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Multimedia scheduling class, take 2
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Of course, without glibc/pthreads support you would only be able to set
> the nice level for the current thread since you don't have any way to
> map from "pthread_t *" to tid. And you wouldn't be able to create new
> threads with a particular nice level already set.
This is the problem... It has to work this way, otherwise it's pretty
useless.
> But that argument
> holds true for a new sched policy as well, because glibc checks the
> policy internally and only knows about the normal three.
Don't tell that to my system, where also SCHED_IDLE, SCHED_BATCH (which
are btw not listed on POSIX either) ...and... SCHED_MM work. It goes
directly to kernel which does the checks and fails if it sees fit.
> This option extends the "nice" API rather than the static priority API,
> so all of the above would still have a static priority of 0 for SCHED_OTHER.
For extending "nice" API, I would first ask for extension in POSIX, and
once it's there I could think about implementation.
And still this doesn't solve the second level problem.
- Jussi
--
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