Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:51:52 -0500 (EST) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: RT Mutex patch and tester [PREEMPT_RT] |
| |
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> I have done 2 things which might be of interrest: > > I) A rt_mutex unittest suite. It might also be usefull against the generic > mutexes. > > II) I changed the priority inheritance mechanism in rt.c, > optaining the following goals: >
Interesting. I'll take a look more at this after I finish dealing with some deadlocks that I found in posix-timers.
[snip] > > What am I missing: > Testing on SMP. I have no SMP machine. The unittest can mimic the SMP > somewhat > but no unittest can catch _all_ errors.
I have a SMP machine that just freed up. It would be interesting to see how this works on a 8x machine. I'll test it first on my 2x, and when Ingo gets some time he can test it on his big boxes.
> > Testing with futexes. > > ALL_PI_TASKS are always switched on now. This is for making the code > simpler. > > My machine fails to run with CONFIG_DEBUG_DEADLOCKS and CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT > on at the same time. I need a serial cabel and on consol over serial to > debug it. My screen is too small to see enough there. > > Figure out more tests to run in my unittester. > > So why aren't I doing those things before sending the patch? 1) Well my > girlfriend comes back tomorrow with our child. I know I will have no time to code anything substential > then. 2) I want to make sure Ingo sees this approach before he starts > merging preempt_rt and rt_mutex with his now mainstream mutex.
If I get time, I might be able to finish this up, if the changes look decent, and don't cause too much overhead.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |