Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:16:49 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk> To: Thomas Valentino Crimi <tcrimi+@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Critical (or equivalent) section in Userland? Message-ID: <399C0FF1.2F97B106@tdx.co.uk> References: <399BA212.A84240AE@tdx.co.uk> <Utb0d7S00UwAMI3bU2@andrew.cmu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas Valentino Crimi wrote: > Take a look at rtprio(2), giving yourself a realtime priority will > guarantee you the CPU until you explicitly release it (or another higher > priority realtime process comes along). I'm not sure if the same > deadlock potential that exists with giving a process an idle priority > exists due to locking in the kernel, although I see no mention of it in > the man pages. It's definitely something I'd be wary of, though. Thanks, I'll look at that... Presumably, even though my process is making syscalls, when they're completed - the scheduler _should_ look to run me first, due to the very high priority? If this doesn't work - I think I'm going to have to look to fixing the problem (and removing the need to 'put the world on hold' while the program tinkers with a few files)... -Karl To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?399C0FF1.2F97B106>