lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: Priority Inheritance Test (Real-Time Preemption)
    From
    On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:16:18AM -0500, john cooper wrote:
    > I'd hazard a guess the reason existing implementations do not
    > do this type of dependency-chain closure is the complexity of a
    > general approach. Getting correct behavior and scaling on SMP
    > require some restrictions of how lock ownership is maintained,
    > otherwise fine grained locking is not possible. Another likely

    What do you mean by that ? Are you talking about strict priority
    obedience by the system ?

    > reason is the fact more mechanism is getting put in place for
    > less likely inversion scenarios. And when those scenarios do
    > exist the cost of effecting promotion closure may well be
    > greater than allowing the priority inversions to subside.
    > However this point of diminishing returns is application
    > dependent so there is no single, simple solution.

    Yes, this is my point.

    > That said I don't see anything in the current work which precludes
    > doing any of the above. To my eyes, the groundwork is already
    > in place.

    Yes it is. :)

    bill

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:4.162 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site