> using SCHED_(USER)?FIFO makes no sense if you do not also call > mlockall(2). both (scheduling+memory pinning) are inaccessible without > root or CAP_SYS_RESOURCE capabilities. i think that a very useful > patch would be one that used /proc/sys/kernel/rtperm (or some similar > name) to turn on or off the ability of regular processes to acquire > these "resources". this would then allow us to use SCHED_FIFO, > mlockall(2) and any future SCHED_.+FIFO policies without the absurd > hoops that many people have to jump through at the moment. > > it would be a very simple patch, i believe, touching just 2 > non-hotspots in the kernel. and credit should be given to whoever it > was in the audience who suggested using /proc ... that wasn't really > my idea at all.
Wasn't it Kai Vehmanen? -- Fernando