On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:34 +1100, Peter Williams wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I can't say much about it because I'm not putting my hand up to > > do anything. Just mentioning that rlimit would be better if not > > for the userspace side of the equation. I think most were already > > agreed on that point anyway though. > > I think that the rlimits are a good idea in themselves but not as a > solution to this problem. I.e. having a RT CPU rate rlimit should not > be a sufficient (or necessary for that matter) condition to change > policy to SCHED_OTHER or SCHED_RR but could still be used to limit the > possibility of lock out. Ah well that may be a good way to do it indeed. As I said, I don't know much about privileges etc. But I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to stop RT-LSM going in (if only because I don't care one way or the other about it). > (But I guess even that is a violation of RT > semantics?) > I'd have to re-read the standard, but it may not be. For example, a compliant system advertises the minimum and maximum priority levels available - you may be able to adjust these based on what the rlimit is set to. On the other hand, yes it may violate the stanards. Nick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
