From: Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Boris Dragovic <lynx@falcon.etf.bg.ac.yu>,
Oswald Buddenhagen <ob6@inf.tu-dresden.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 21:09:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010309210913.F13320@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010309204243.E13320@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103100001200.2283-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0103100001200.2283-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 12:02:05AM -0300
Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Just raise the priority whenever the task's in kernel mode. Problem
> > solved.
>
> Remember that a task schedules itself out at the timer interrupt,
> in kernel/sched.c::schedule() ... which is kernel mode ;)
Even nicer. On x86 change this:
reschedule:
call SYMBOL_NAME(schedule) # test
jmp ret_from_sys_call
to this:
reschedule:
orl $PF_HONOUR_LOW_PRIORITY,flags(%ebx)
call SYMBOL_NAME(schedule) # test
andl $~PF_HONOUR_LOW_PRIORITY,flags(%ebx)
jmp ret_from_sys_call
(You get the idea; this isn't the best implementation).
I think this code can only be reached in two ways:
1. An interrupt, exception, page fault etc. that is returning to user space.
2. A system call, whatever space it's from.
In both these cases, no critical locks will be held, right?
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-09 20:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-07 17:40 Oswald Buddenhagen
2001-03-07 18:04 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-07 19:20 ` Oswald Buddenhagen
2001-03-07 21:34 ` ludovic
2001-03-08 11:17 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2001-03-08 11:41 ` Andrew Morton
2001-03-08 13:29 ` Boris Dragovic
2001-03-08 13:44 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-08 20:19 ` Boris Dragovic
2001-03-08 20:47 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-09 19:38 ` george anzinger
2001-03-09 20:19 ` Adrian Cox
2001-03-12 18:05 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-03-12 19:37 ` Adrian Cox
2001-03-13 9:40 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-03-10 2:58 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-09 19:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-03-10 3:02 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-09 20:09 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2001-03-10 4:56 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-14 13:19 ` Jamie Lokier
2001-03-15 3:13 ` Rik van Riel
2001-03-14 14:26 ` Philipp Rumpf
2001-03-09 11:26 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010309210913.F13320@pcep-jamie.cern.ch \
--to=lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lynx@falcon.etf.bg.ac.yu \
--cc=ob6@inf.tu-dresden.de \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®