![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! > >>If some rogue threads (and it may not even be intetional) call the same > >>syscall stressing the one spinlock all the time, other syscalls needing > >>the same spinlock may stall. > > > >Fortunately, they'll unstall with probability of 1... so no, I do not > >think this is real problem. > > You can't tell that CPUs behave exactly probabilistically --- it may > happen that one gets out of the wait loop always too late. Well, I don't need them to be _exactly_ probabilistical. Anyway, if you have 2048 CPUs... you can perhaps get some non-broken ones. > >If someone takes semaphore in syscall (we do), same problem may > >happen, right...? Without need for 2048 cpus. Maybe semaphores/mutexes > >are fair (or mostly fair) these days, but rwlocks may not be or > >something. > > Scheduler increases priority of sleeping process, so starving process > should be waken up first. But if there are so many processes, that >process I do not think this is how Linux scheduler works. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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: 2006-11-10 10:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||