Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM

["Jack O'Quin" <joq@xxxxxx>]

Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:25:08PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>> The basic issue is that the current semantics of SCHED_FIFO seem make
>> the deadlock/data corruption due to runaway RT thread issue difficult.
>> The obvious solution is a new scheduling class equivalent to SCHED_FIFO
>> but with a mechanism for the kernel to demote the offending thread to
>> SCHED_OTHER in an emergency. 
>
> and this is getting really close to the original "counter proposal" to the
> LSM module that was basically "lets make lower nice limit an rlimit, and
> have -20 mean "basically FIFO" *if* the task behaves itself".

Yes.  However, my tests have so far shown a need for "actual FIFO as
long as the task behaves itself."

Otherwise, your rlimits proposal is fine.  I still think it puts more
of a burden on the sysadmin, but nobody else seems to care about that.
-- 
  joq
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/