lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Priority Inheritance Test (Real-Time Preemption)
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
> 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 ?

Not quite if I understand your question. I was referring to
avoiding having a global lock to synchronize the conglomerate
data structure when doing a PI dependency walk. The problem
is the lock must be acquired not only in PI scenarios but in
any case which may possibly lead to one or affect a concurrent
PI in progress.

True this global lock is mostly an issue for large count
SMP systems. But as witnessed by such voodoo[1] mechanisms
as rcu, scalability problems are real at that end of the
spectrum.

-john


[1] in a 'nice' way.


--
john.cooper@timesys.com
-
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:0.395 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site