From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:08:12 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.74-mm1 Message-ID: <20030711010812.GA15452@holomorphy.com> References: <20030703023714.55d13934.akpm@osdl.org> <200307100059.57398.phillips@arcor.de> <16140.51447.73888.717087@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <200307110304.11216.phillips@arcor.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307110304.11216.phillips@arcor.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Peter Chubb , Jamie Lokier , Davide Libenzi , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 03:04:11AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Thinking strictly about the needs of sound processing, what's needed is a > guarantee of so much cpu time each time the timer fires, and a user limit to > prevent cpu hogging. It's worth pondering the difference between that and > rate-of-forward-progress. I suspect some simple improvements to the current > scheduler can be made to do the job, and at the same time, avoid the > priorty-based starvation issue that seems to have been practically mandated > by POSIX. Such scheduling policies are called "isochronous". -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org