On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:30:46 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:22:21 -0600 > Clark Williams <willi...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > I'm still reviewing the patch, but I have to wonder why bother with making > > it a scheduler feature? > > > > The SCHED_FIFO definition allows a fifo thread to starve others > > because a fifo task will run until it yields. Throttling was added as > > a safety valve to allow starved SCHED_OTHER tasks to get some cpu > > time. Adding this unconditionally gets us a safety valve for > > throttling a badly written fifo task, but allows the fifo task to > > continue to consume cpu cycles if it's not starving anyone. > > > > Or am I missing something that's blazingly obvious? > > Or I say make it the default. If people want the old behavior, they can > modify SCHED_FEATURES to do so. > Ok, I can see wanting the previous behavior. Clark
pgp1Ch6TqUqc8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
