On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 02:52 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:30 +0100 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2007-12-22 at 04:52 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: > > > > > So, user tasks running with SCHED_FIFO should be able to lock a system? > > > I guess I see both sides of this argument - yes, it's userspace at > > > fault, but in other cases when userspace is at fault, we take action > > > (OOM, segfault, others). Isn't this situation just another case where > > > the kernel needs to avoid the evils of userland going awry? > > > > FYI, Ingo queued the below. > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/31/344 > > > > That's pretty different of course, but rlimit might be a suitable interface > for implementing RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS.
Right. Just when I thought there was no point in continuing (Ingo having invented everything already, as usual), this specific problem remains. I'll try bouncing some ideas off Ingo later. Jon. -- 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/
