| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 17:32:40 +0200 From: "Tadeus (Eus) Prastowo" <0x657573@...glemail.com> To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Priority Inheritance] SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR? On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 22:29 +0200, Tadeus (Eus) Prastowo wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 21:12 +0200, Tadeus (Eus) Prastowo wrote: >> >> > Why should a SCHED_NORMAL task inheriting the priority of a SCHED_RR >> >> > task get the privilege of SCHED_FIFO task for running as long as it >> >> > wishes even when the task giving the inheritance does not have such >> >> > privilege? >> > >> > Existence of a critical section > slice would be the real problem, no? >> >> No, it's not a problem because if a real-time system designer puts a >> real-time task under SCHED_RR, he will calculate the length of the >> critical section by taking into account the slice. > > Submit a patch, and see if it flies. Okay, thank you for the direction. It seems that only with a patch I can get the answer ;-) > -Mike -- Eus -- 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