lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: static scheduling - SCHED_IDLE?
Adrian Cox wrote:
> Unfortunately the kernel is already full of counting semaphores.
> Priority inheritance won't save you, as the task which is going to call
> up() need not be the same one that called down().
>
> Jamie Lokier's suggestion of raising priority when in the kernel doesn't
> help. You need to raise the priority of the task which is currently in
> userspace and will call up() next time it enters the kernel. You don't
> know which task that is.

Dear oh dear. I was under the impression that kernel semaphores are
supposed to be used as mutexes only -- there are other mechanisms for
signalling between processes.

Do any processes ever enter userspace holding a critical semaphore?

(Things like userspace signalling another userspace don't count -- it's
your own fault and your own problem if _that_ deadlocks).

-- Jamie
-
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 13:29    [W:0.212 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site