Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:21:26 +0100 (MET) | From | Esben Nielsen <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.16-rc6-rt1 |
| |
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 23:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > no. We have to run deadlock detection to avoid things like circular lock > > > > dependencies causing an infinite schedule+wakeup 'storm' during priority > > > > boosting. (like possible with your wakeup based method i think) > > > No, all tasks would just settle on the highest priority and then the > > > wakeups would stop. > > > > you are right, that shouldnt be possible. But how about other, SMP > > artifacts? What if the woken up task runs on another CPU, and the whole > > chain of boosting is thus delayed? > > And it does not solve the problem of ad hoc deadlock detection at all. >
I have a feeling that it can't be done without a global lock. The idea I have with releasing the all locks in each iteration might not give reliable results for deadlocking.
Esben
> tglx > > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |