Matthew Dharm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 08:24:44AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2003 05:00 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > The question is, what is the best way to handle this. I'm guessing that
> > > increasing the priority of the usb-storage control thread will help, but
> > > that's just a guess. I'm not even sure how to go about doing that, tho...
> >
> > A kernel thread in the block io path has to have a higher priority than
> > any user task. Otherwise a priority inversion is possible.
>
> Reasonable. So, other than renice at the command line, how does one go
> about setting this?
Try this patch. The loop device thread is doing the same thing.
diff -puN drivers/usb/storage/usb.c~usb-priority drivers/usb/storage/usb.c
--- linux/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c~usb-priority Sun Jul 27 10:56:02 2003
+++ linux-petero/drivers/usb/storage/usb.c Sun Jul 27 10:56:47 2003
@@ -302,6 +302,8 @@ static int usb_stor_control_thread(void
current->flags |= PF_IOTHREAD;
+ set_user_nice(current, -20);
+
unlock_kernel();
/* signal that we've started the thread */
--
Peter Osterlund - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
