Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm2

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:59:42AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > think of SCHED_FIFO on the desktop as an ugly wart, a hammer, that
> > destroys the careful balance of priorities of SCHED_OTHER tasks. Yes, it
> > can be useful if you _need_ a scheduling guarantee due to physical
> > constraints, and it can be useful if the hardware (or the kernel) cannot
> > buffer enough, but otherwise, it only causes problems.
> 
> Agreed. I think something short of full SCHED_FIFO will make most
> desktop folks happy. [...]

ah, but it's not the desktop folks who have to be happy but users :-)
Really, if you ask any app designer then obviously 'the more CPU time we
get for sure, the better our app behaves'. So in that sense SCHED_OTHER
is a fair playground: if you behave nicely you'll have higher priority
and shorter latencies.

(there are things like SCHED_ISO but how good of a solution they are is
not yet clear.)

> [...] But a) we still have to figure out exactly how to do that and b)
> we still have to make everyone else happy. The embedded folks (me
> included) would prefer to not run our realtime bits as root too..

you dont have to - you can drop root after startup.

> > but i'm not sure how rlimits will contain the whole problem - can
> > rlimits be restricted to a single app (jackd)?
> 
> Yes. There's also the whole soft limit thing.

i'm curious, how does this 'per-app' rlimit thing work? If a user has
jackd installed and runs it from X unprivileged, how does it get the
elevated rlimit? (while the rest of his desktop still runs with a safe
rlimit.) SELinux/RT-LSM could do this, but i'm not sure about how
rlimits give this to you.

	Ingo