>Anyway, I think this patch has its place on linux-kernel. It will most likely >be rejected but it shows that people are interested in these issues... >(Who knows Ingo might get another bright idea... :-)
i agree, but i also raise another angle that i spoke about a couple of times at zkm this last weekend. using SCHED_(USER)?FIFO makes no sense if you do not also call mlockall(2). both (scheduling+memory pinning) are inaccessible without root or CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capabilities. i think that a very useful patch would be one that used /proc/sys/kernel/rtperm (or some similar name) to turn on or off the ability of regular processes to acquire these "resources". this would then allow us to use SCHED_FIFO, mlockall(2) and any future SCHED_.+FIFO policies without the absurd hoops that many people have to jump through at the moment. it would be a very simple patch, i believe, touching just 2 non-hotspots in the kernel. and credit should be given to whoever it was in the audience who suggested using /proc ... that wasn't really my idea at all. --p
