Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 22 May 2003 11:52:24 +0200 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: web page on O(1) scheduler |
| |
At 10:56 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> > said: > > Mike> The page mentions persistent starvation. My own explorations > Mike> of this issue indicate that the primary source is always > Mike> selecting the highest priority queue. > >My working assumption is that the problem is a bug with the dynamic >prioritization. The task receiving the signals calls sleep() after >handling a signal and hence it's dynamic priority should end up higher >than the priority of the task sending signals (since the sender never >relinquishes the CPU voluntarily). > >However, I haven't actually had time to look at the relevant code, so >I may be missing something. If you understand the issue better, >please explain to me why this isn't a dynamic priority issue.
You're right, it looks like a corner case. It works fine here with the attached diff.
-Mike [unhandled content-type:application/octet-stream] | ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |