On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perfectly understood. I've had two customers ask me to increase the > > priorities for them, but those where custom kernels, and a config > > option wasn't necessary. But since I've had customers asking, I > > thought that this might be something that others want. But I deal > > with a niche market, and what my customers want might not be what > > everyone wants. (hence the RFC in the subject). > > > > So if there are others out there that would prefer to change their > > priority ranges, speak now otherwise this patch will go by the waste > > side. > > i'm not excluding that this will become necessary in the future. We > should also add the safety check to sched.h - all i'm suggesting is to > not make it a .config option just now, because that tends to be fiddled > with. > Isn't there a way to mark it "warning! warning! dangerous!" ?
Anyway: I think 100 RT priorities is way overkill - and slowing things down by making the scheduler checking more empty slots in the runqueue. Default ought to be 10. In practise it will be very hard to have a task at the lower RT priority behaving real-time with 99 higher priority tasks around. I find it hard to believe that somebody has an RT app needing more than 10 priorities and can't do with RR or FIFO scheduling within a fewer number of prorities. Esben > Ingo > - > 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/ > - 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/
