> > did "these" apply only to the tasks, that actually hold a lock?
> > if not, then i don't like this idea, as it gives the processes
> > time for the only reason, that it _might_ hold a lock. this basically
> > undermines the idea of static classes. in this case, we could actually
> > just make the "nice" scale incredibly large and possibly nonlinear,
> > as mark suggested.
>
> would it be possible to subqueue tasks that are holding a lock so that
> they get some guaranteed amount of cpu and just leave other to be executed
> when processor really idle?
There was implementation which promoted SCHED_IDLE task to normal
priority whenever it entered syscall. I liked it.
Pavel
-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/