Messages in this thread | | | From | Kirill Tkhai <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other | Date | Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:19:32 +0400 |
| |
Hi, Thomas,
have you seen this version?
Thanks, Kirill
30.05.2014, 00:52, "Kirill Tkhai" <tkhai@yandex.ru>: > В Ср, 28/05/2014 в 22:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: >> On Mon, 5 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: >>> В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: >>>> Though exercising that code path as much as we can is not a bad thing >>>> either. So I'd like to see that made compile time conditional on one >>>> of the lock testing CONFIG items. >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_RT_MUTEX_BOOST_ALL >> No, not another pointless config option. Read what I said. What's >> wrong with using an existing config item, e.g DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES? >>> +#define heritable_prio(prio) (rt_prio(prio) || dl_prio(prio)) >> inheritable please. It's not priority heritance and never will be. > > Thanks for comments. Here is new version. > > [PATCH] rtmutex: Do not boost owner's prio if waiter is SCHED_OTHER > > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege > of one fair class task over the other. In this case > priority boosting is pointless, and it may worsen > performance. > > This patch makes boosting, which is requested by fair > class waiters, optional. It's disabled by default, but > it's possible to enable it for debugging purposes to > have more cases of priority inheritance. > > Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru> > > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) -- 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/
| |