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.
I'd extend Peter's rt safety net instead: mark for forced requeue when
the soft limit is hit, or add that as an intermediate stage. Possibly
add a demotion stage as well. I wouldn't try to select lower priority
tasks, which RLIMIT_MAX_CONTINUOUS_RT_MILLISECONDS implies to me.
-Mike
--
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/
