lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
From
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 04:43:05PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I have a better example of something we currently get wrong that I
> haven't heard any RT person worry about yet. If two tasks are sleeping
> on the same semaphore, the one to be woken up will be the first one to
> wait for it, not the highest-priority task.
>
> Obviously, this was introduced by the wake-one semantics. But how to
> fix it? Should we scan the entire queue looking for the best task to
> wake? Should we try to maintain the wait list in priority order? Or
> should we just not care? Should we document that we don't care? ;-)

-rt deals with this using priority sorted wait queue and direct ownership
hand off to the woken thread. It's working fine for now, but things like
wake-all and company should probably be explored for various uses. A
strict general purpose and RT usage of the Linux kernel have different
performance characteristic and mutex selection at compile time should
address things precisely.

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: 2005-12-22 13:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans