lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
From
Date
On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 15:22, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> > No, this isn't needed. This same problem would occur without
> > preemption. Our semaphores now have locking rules such that we aren't
> > going to have blatant priority inversion like this (1 holds A needs B, 2
> > holds B needs A).
>
> No this is a good old deadlock.
> The problem with preemption and SCHED_FIFO is, that due to SCHED_FIFO
> you have no guarantee that any task will make any progress at all.
> Thus a semaphore could basically be held forever.
> That can happen without preemption only if you do something that
> might block.

Well, semaphores block. And we have these races right now with
SCHED_FIFO tasks. I still contend preempt does not change the nature of
the problem and it certainly doesn't introduce a new one.

Robert Love

-
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 13:15    [W:5.719 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site