Re: Weightless process class

[Matti Aarnio]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:49:43PM -0700, LA Walsh wrote:
> > One problem here is that you might end up with a weightless
> > process having grabbed a superblock lock, after which a
> > normal priority CPU hog kicks in and starves the weightless
> > process.
> ---
> 	One way would be to set a flag "I'm holding a lock" and when
> it releases the lock(s), deschedule it?

	There is a well-known name for this -- priority inversion.

	Implement the whole shebang of starvation avoidance tricks,
	and we can whak the scheduler to group processes into separate
	subsets, which in current system leads to starvation lockups.

	A thing for 2.5 ?  (With possible backport to 2.4 latter.)

> -l

/Matti Aarnio