lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Priority Inheritance Test (Real-Time Preemption)

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> > the additional +1 msec comes from the fact that 1-deep lock/unlock of
> > lock1 is an allowed operation too - 2 msec would be the limit if the
> > only sequence is the 2-deep one.
> >
> > so i think the numbers, at least in the 2-deep case, are quite close
> > to the theoretical boundary.
>
> in the generic case i think the theoretical boundary should be something
> like:
>
> sum(i=1...n)(i) == (n+1) * n / 2
>
> n=1 limit=1
> n=2 limit=3
> n=3 limit=6
> n=4 limit=10
>
> this is quite close to what you have measured for n=1,2,3, and i think
> it's becoming exponentially harder to trigger the worst-case with higher
> N, so the measured results will likely be lower than that.

also, you might want to try the simpler N-deep-locking-only variant,
where the maximum latency should be 'n'. This likely needs some changes
to the blocker.c code though - i.e. set 'max' always to lock_depth.

Ingo
-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans