Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jeff Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: priority inversion | Date | Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:50:55 -0600 |
| |
Priority Inversion is **BAD BUSINESS**. Someone whould fix whatever this person is complaining about. I agree that priority inheritance is slow and makes for **FAT** sync object code, but it's either this or throw priorities out of the window in the kernel proper since we will see **LOTS** of deadlocks and busted applications if an inversion model is what we end up with.
Jeff
----- Original Message ----- From: Clayton Weaver <cgweav@eskimo.com> To: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:26 AM Subject: priority inversion
> If you're not going to handle the potential priority inversion to > prevent priority deadlock, then you might as well label the config > options > > Enable TOY_SCHED_RT (enable possible priority deadlock) [N]? > Enable TOY_SCHED_IDLE (enable possible priority deadlock) [N]? > > "Can deadlock" is synonymous with "don't use this." Is this the > real goal, to just have an experimental real-time and/or minimal > priority scheduler that is not dependable, to try out different paths > through the scheduler? > > comp.realtime: "Hey, if it's too slow with priority inheritance, we'll run > it on something else, but allowing priority inversion is not an option." > > Regards, > > Clayton Weaver > <mailto:cgweav@eskimo.com> > (Seattle) > > "Everybody's ignorant, just in different subjects." Will Rogers > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |