From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jun  8 06:06:36 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id GAA11172
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 06:06:36 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA11165
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 06:06:30 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id WAA25379; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 22:58:28 +1000
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 22:58:28 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199506081258.WAA25379@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su, bde@zeta.org.au
Subject: Re: Interval timer/System clock
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> the others at rtprio 0.  I think the priority doesn't affect swapping,
>> so for consistent timing a real time process might want extra wakeups to
>> keep itself in core and early wakeups to allow time for swapping it in;

>Does mlock() not work in FreeBSD ? Or does it not help in this case ?

I don't know a lot about this.  John Dyson says that real time priority
stops swapping but not paging.  mlock() is supposed to work to stop
paging.

Bruce