Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default
[Posted September 3, 2008 by corbet]
| From: |
| Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
| To: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default |
| Date: |
| Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:53:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID: |
| <20080828215321.7a1fabd5@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
| Cc: |
| Mark Hounschell <markh-AT-compro.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin-AT-yahoo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Stefani Seibold <stefani-AT-seibold.net>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin-AT-linux.it>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk-AT-qualcomm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article,
Thread
|
> And I'm not really interested. Quite frankly, I suspect the "we want to
> run something like pulseaudio with RT priorities" camp is the more common
> one, and in that context I understand limiting SCHED_FIFO sounds perfectly
> understandable.
Is there actually a reason we can't have two forms of SCHED_FIFO. For
hard RT the existing behaviour is a lot more useful and it is hard to see
how you'd emulate it.
> quite frankly, most programmers aren't "supposedly bad". And if you think
> that the hard-RT "real man" programmers aren't bad, I really have nothing
> to say.
"real man" programmers stare at the code in Zen contemplation and debug
by powercycling - thats one thing even hard RT processes can't beat.
Alan
(
Log in to post comments)