On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:49:43PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> > One problem here is that you might end up with a weightless
> > process having grabbed a superblock lock, after which a
> > normal priority CPU hog kicks in and starves the weightless
> > process.
> ---
> One way would be to set a flag "I'm holding a lock" and when
> it releases the lock(s), deschedule it?
There is a well-known name for this -- priority inversion.
Implement the whole shebang of starvation avoidance tricks,
and we can whak the scheduler to group processes into separate
subsets, which in current system leads to starvation lockups.
A thing for 2.5 ? (With possible backport to 2.4 latter.)
> -l
/Matti Aarnio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
