Re: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler

From: Joachim B Haga (c.j.b.haga_at_fys.uio.no)
Date: 02/29/04

  • Next message: Oliver Feiler: "Re: [OT] Copyright infringement by Walmart?" 
    To: Peter Williams <peterw@aurema.com>
Date:	29 Feb 2004 12:58:14 +0100

    Peter Williams <peterw@aurema.com> writes:

    >>> They already do e.g. renice is such a program.
    >> No one's talking about LOWERING priority here. You can only DoS
    >> someone else if you can set negative nice values, and non-root
    >> can't do that.
    >
    > Which is why root has to be in control of the mechanism.

    It seems to me that much of this could be solved if the user *were*
    allowed to lower nice values (down to 0).

    Right now the only way I can prioritize between my own processes by
    starting important/timing sensitive programs normally and everything
    else reniced. The problem is that the first category consists of one
    or two programs while the second category is, well, "everything else".

    I would *love* to be able to start the window manager and all children
    at +10 and be able to adjust priorities, from 0 (important user-level)
    to 10 (normal) to 20. Negative values could still be root-only.

    So why shouldn't this be possible? Because a greedy user in a
    multi-user system would just run everything at max prio thus defeating
    the purpose? Sure, that would be annoying but it would have another
    solution ie. an entitlement based scheduler or something.

    (and isn't it this simple?)

    --- linux-2.6.3-mm3/kernel/sys.c.orig 2004-02-29 12:58:45.000000000 +0100
    +++ linux-2.6.3-mm3/kernel/sys.c 2004-02-29 12:59:20.000000000 +0100
    @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@
                    error = -EPERM;
                    goto out;
            }
    - if (niceval < task_nice(p) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
    + if (niceval < 0 && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
                    error = -EACCES;
                    goto out;
            }

    Regards,
    Joachim B Haga
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Oliver Feiler: "Re: [OT] Copyright infringement by Walmart?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Priority Inheritance Test (Real-Time Preemption)
      ... Why should task B get lock1 the 2. ... time before the rt-task? ... priority after releasing the lock in __up_mutex. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • RE: [RFC][PATCH] O(1) Entitlement Based Scheduler
      ... well-defined location} to load some simple environment and path and priority ... Has this scheduler been tried for applications like CD burning? ... them if they are running specified binaries ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Power Management Update
      ... >> This is not suprising, and likely something that many people will run ... There is a lot of driver work that needs to be done, ... It is a priority, but they pose a stiff challenge that not many know how ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH] O11int for interactivity
      ... >> more smoothing of the corners. ... * priority but is modified by bonuses/penalties. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: 2.6.14-rt1
      ... On 11/2/05, Florian Schmidt wrote: ... > each other when the dynamic priority changes. ... understanding of realtime scheduling suggests SCHED_FIFO is supposed ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)