[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307439469.2322.235.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:37:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Armin Steinhoff <armin@...inhoff.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Johannes Bauer <hannes_bauer@....at>,
Monica Puig-Pey <puigpeym@...can.es>,
Rolando Martins <rolando.martins@...il.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Changing Kernel thread priorities
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 11:40 +0200, Armin Steinhoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when I read all these confusing statements here ( in german it looks
> like an "Eiertanz") ... I can only say:
>
> - do the basic stuff in a minimal kernel driver
> - use UIO (or VFIO for PCI devices)
I see no requirement for any of those horrid things to be used. You can
write a full on proper kernel driver, it just cannot set kernel thread
priorities to a sane value (let them all default to 50 or so).
Then have a user space script or whatever set the kthread priorities.
> and you get clean control about your real-time priorities.
>
> I think changing the priorities of "interrupt threads" inside the kernel
> could lead to strange race conditions in the kernel.
No, changing the priority in the kernel is a perfectly sound operation,
it just doesn't make any sense to do so since its impossible to
determine a proper priority.
Therefore setting a priority is a pure user policy and should not be
done by the driver itself -- it simply cannot do it right so why bother
doing it.
--
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