Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:34 +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:

> > I can't say much about it because I'm not putting my hand up to
> > do anything. Just mentioning that rlimit would be better if not
> > for the userspace side of the equation. I think most were already
> > agreed on that point anyway though.
> 
> I think that the rlimits are a good idea in themselves but not as a 
> solution to this problem.  I.e. having a RT CPU rate rlimit should not 
> be a sufficient (or necessary for that matter) condition to change 
> policy to SCHED_OTHER or SCHED_RR but could still be used to limit the 
> possibility of lock out.

Ah well that may be a good way to do it indeed. As I said, I
don't know much about privileges etc.

But I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to stop RT-LSM
going in (if only because I don't care one way or the other
about it).

>   (But I guess even that is a violation of RT 
> semantics?)
> 

I'd have to re-read the standard, but it may not be. For example,
a compliant system advertises the minimum and maximum priority
levels available - you may be able to adjust these based on what
the rlimit is set to. On the other hand, yes it may violate the
stanards.

Nick