Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?

[Boris Dragovic]

> did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock?
> if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes
> time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically 
> undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually
> just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear, 
> as mark suggested.

would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock so that
they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave other to be executed
when processor really idle?

lynx

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/