On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:37, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:41, Steve Rotolo wrote:
> > I guess the bottom-line is: given N logical cpus, 1/N of all
> > SCHED_NORMAL tasks may get stuck on a sibling cpu with no chance to
> > run.  All it takes is one spinning SCHED_FIFO task.  Sounds like a bug.
>
> You're right, and excuse me for missing it. 

Oh and thanks for picking it up!

Cheers,
Con