[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607233809.GB31794@opentech.at>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 01:38:09 +0200
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
Armin Steinhoff <armin@...inhoff.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, 07 Jun 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 13:02 +0200, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> > > Well, I 100% agree that it must be under full userspace control to be
> > > able to set the priorities. But, the kernel default assumption of
> > > starting everything at 50 is wrong as well.
> > > Imagine the following situation:
> > > * Realtime application is running and has threads active in the range
> > > of prios 20 - 90.
> > > * Now bring up a network device, it immediately starts spamming the
> > > system at prio 50 _before_ you have the chance to set it below 20 by
> > > means of chrt.
> > > * RT behaviour is gone!
> >
> > Good point I guess, Thomas should we default to 1 for everything?
>
> No objections.
I think that splitting the range makes more sense - you are now potentially
reverting the argument brought up before.
"My drivers behave properly until I load any RT-task"
hofrat
--
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