From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
gaxt <gaxt@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Scheduler activations (IIRC) question
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:18:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030816141851.GD23646@mail.jlokier.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20030816080614.01a0e418@pop.gmx.net>
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> At 01:54 AM 8/16/2003 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> [...]
>
> >None of these will work well if "wakee" tasks are able to run
> >immediately after being woken, before "waker" tasks get a chance to
> >either block or put the wakees back to sleep.
>
> Sounds like another scheduler class (SCHED_NOPREEMPT) would be required.
If something special were to be added, it should be a way for a task
to say "If I call schedule() and block, don't do a schedule, just
continue my timeslice in task X".
The point of the mechanism is to submit system calls in an
asynchronous fashion, after all. A proper task scheduling is
inappropriate when all we'd like to do is initiate the syscall and
continue processing, just as if it were an async I/O request.
The interesting part is what to do when the original task (the one
that went to sleep) wakes up.
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-16 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-15 15:49 [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 18:26 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-15 18:45 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-08-16 2:31 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 15:46 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 15:43 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-18 19:48 ` Timothy Miller
2003-08-18 22:46 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-15 19:00 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2003-08-16 2:14 ` [PATCH]O16.1int was " Con Kolivas
2003-08-15 21:01 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-15 23:03 ` Scheduler activations (IIRC) question Jamie Lokier
2003-08-15 23:54 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-08-16 0:54 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 6:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-16 14:18 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2003-08-17 5:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 6:55 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 7:05 ` Nick Piggin
2003-08-17 8:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 17:12 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 17:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-08-17 18:26 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2003-08-17 18:29 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-17 18:46 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 20:54 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-16 21:39 ` Jamie Lokier
[not found] ` <20030817144203.J670@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de>
2003-08-17 20:02 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-18 0:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-08-18 10:38 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-08-18 13:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-16 7:01 ` [PATCH] O16int for interactivity Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 10:08 ` Apurva Mehta
2003-08-18 10:30 ` Con Kolivas
2003-08-18 12:13 ` Apurva Mehta
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=20030816141851.GD23646@mail.jlokier.co.uk \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gaxt@rogers.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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®