On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:30:46 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:22:21 -0600
> Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm still reviewing the patch, but I have to wonder why bother with making it a scheduler feature?
> > 
> > The SCHED_FIFO definition allows a fifo thread to starve others
> > because a fifo task will run until it yields. Throttling was added as
> > a safety valve to allow starved SCHED_OTHER tasks to get some cpu
> > time.  Adding this unconditionally gets us a safety valve for
> > throttling a badly written fifo task, but allows the fifo task to
> > continue to consume cpu cycles if it's not starving anyone. 
> > 
> > Or am I missing something that's blazingly obvious?  
> 
> Or I say make it the default. If people want the old behavior, they can
> modify SCHED_FEATURES to do so.
> 

Ok, I can see wanting the previous behavior. 

Clark