lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Priority Inheritance Test (Real-Time Preemption)
From
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:16:18AM -0500, john cooper wrote:
> I'd hazard a guess the reason existing implementations do not
> do this type of dependency-chain closure is the complexity of a
> general approach. Getting correct behavior and scaling on SMP
> require some restrictions of how lock ownership is maintained,
> otherwise fine grained locking is not possible. Another likely

What do you mean by that ? Are you talking about strict priority
obedience by the system ?

> reason is the fact more mechanism is getting put in place for
> less likely inversion scenarios. And when those scenarios do
> exist the cost of effecting promotion closure may well be
> greater than allowing the priority inversions to subside.
> However this point of diminishing returns is application
> dependent so there is no single, simple solution.

Yes, this is my point.

> That said I don't see anything in the current work which precludes
> doing any of the above. To my eyes, the groundwork is already
> in place.

Yes it is. :)

bill

-
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    [W:0.150 / U:1.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site