Re: [PATCH] Force processes to non-realtime before mm_exit

2016-09-02 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:18:44PM -0700, Brian Silverman wrote: > > Without this, a realtime process which has called mlockall exiting > > causes large latencies for other realtime processes at the same or > > lower priorities. This seems like a fairly

Re: [PATCH] Force processes to non-realtime before mm_exit

2016-07-14 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:18:44PM -0700, Brian Silverman wrote: > Without this, a realtime process which has called mlockall exiting > causes large latencies for other realtime processes at the same or > lower priorities. This seems like a fairly common use case too, because > realtime processes g

Re: [PATCH] Force processes to non-realtime before mm_exit

2016-06-04 Thread Corey Minyard
On 06/03/2016 06:18 PM, Brian Silverman wrote: Without this, a realtime process which has called mlockall exiting causes large latencies for other realtime processes at the same or lower priorities. This seems like a fairly common use case too, because realtime processes generally want their memo

Re: [PATCH] Force processes to non-realtime before mm_exit

2016-06-03 Thread Brian Silverman
Sebastian had some questions about this patch when I first sent it to rt-users. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 05/25/2016 08:00 PM, Brian Silverman wrote: >>> Why can't the application drop the RT priority before its exit? Wouldn't >>> that be appropriate?

[PATCH] Force processes to non-realtime before mm_exit

2016-06-03 Thread Brian Silverman
Without this, a realtime process which has called mlockall exiting causes large latencies for other realtime processes at the same or lower priorities. This seems like a fairly common use case too, because realtime processes generally want their memory locked into RAM. Signed-off-by: Brian Silverm