lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Priority Lists for the RT mutex
From
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:57:37AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Let me re-phrase then: it is a must have only on PI, to make sure you
> > don't have a loop when doing it. Maybe is a consequence of the
> > algorithm I chose. -However- it should be possible to disable it in
> > cases where you are reasonably sure it won't happen (such as kernel
> > code). In any case, AFAIR, I still did not implement it.
>
> are there cases where userspace wants to disable deadlock-detection for
> its own locks?

I'd disable it for userspace locks. There might be folks that want to
implement userspace drivers, but I can't imagine it being 'ok' to have
the kernel call out to userspace and have it block correctly. I would
expect them to do something else that's less drastic.

> the deadlock detector in PREEMPT_RT is pretty much specialized for
> debugging (it does all sorts of weird locking tricks to get the first
> deadlock out, and to really report it on the console), but it ought to
> be possible to make it usable for userspace-controlled locks as well.

If I understand things correctly, I'd let that be an RT app issue and
the app folks should decided what is appropriate for their setup. If
they need a deadlock detector they should decide on their own protocol.
The kernel debugging issues are completely different.

That's my two cents.

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: 2005-04-12 00:28    [W:0.047 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site