Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:55:29 +0200 | Subject | Re: priority inversion | From | Marc Lehmann <> |
| |
On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:50:55AM -0600, Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@timpanogas.com> wrote: > Priority Inversion is **BAD BUSINESS**. Someone whould fix whatever this > person is complaining about. I agree that priority inheritance is slow and > makes for **FAT** sync object code, but it's either this or throw priorities > out of the window in the kernel proper since we will see **LOTS** of > deadlocks and busted applications if an inversion model is what we end up > with.
Linux has had this RT support for _quite_ some time. Other unices had as well. It would be nice to have priority inheritance, but its by no means as crucial as you describe it ;)
-- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |