On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:03:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 22:49 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Introduce a new rlimit that allows the user to set a runtime timeout > > > on real-time tasks. Once this limit is exceeded the task will receive > > > SIGXCPU. > > > > Nice idea. > > > > It would be even nicer if you could allow a couple of them. Partition > > the RT priorities into a few classes and have an own limit for each them. > > > > A small number of classes (3-4) would be probably enough and not bloat > > the rlimits too much. > > > > I'm thinking of the case where you have different kinds of real > > time processes. Like your mp3 player which you want to be slightly > > real time, but with a low SIGXCPU limit. > > > > And then something else real time which is more important and > > you would set a higher limit. etc. > > But its an rlimit, it can be set per process. Not sure what multiple
That's impractical -- you would need to patch the process or call it from a special program, which is not nice. rlimits are useful to set a limit during log in. For that the children can be all kinds of different processes and possibly use different settings. > classes per process would gain us, let alone how that process has to > figure out which class to use. You set the classes once per rlimit (e.g. in a pam module) Then the processes set different scheduling priorities by themselves (standard programs do that). Then that priority would map to a different class. -Andi - 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/
