lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: any fairness in NTPL pthread mutexes?
From
Date
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 13:06 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 11:57 -0600, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > I'm using NPTL.
> >
> > If I have a pthread mutex currently owned by a task, and two other tasks
> > try to lock it, when the mutex is unlocked, are there any rules about
> > the order in which the waiting tasks get the mutex (ie priority, FIFO,
> > etc.)?
>
> I believe it's currently FIFO in violation of POSIX which specifies
> priority based wakeup. AIUI one of the main goals of the realtime &
> robust mutexes work is to fix this.

Sorry this is wrong - the current behavior is allowed by POSIX for
SCHED_OTHER but not SCHED_FIFO or _RR.

Lee

-
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: 2005-10-31 23:13    [W:0.035 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site