[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NPTL mutex and the scheduling priority
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 17:10 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> > # This is a copy of message posted libc-alpha ML. I want to hear from
> > # kernel people too ...
> >
> > Hi. I found that it seems NPTL's mutex does not follow the scheduling
> > parameter. If some threads were blocked by getting a single
> > mutex_lock, I expect that a thread with highest priority got the lock
> > first, but current NPTL's behaviour is different.
> \
> you want to use the PI futexes that are in 2.6.17-rc5-mm tree

Even for normal mutices pthread_mutex_unlock and
pthread_cond_{signal,broadcast} is supposed to honor the RT priority and
scheduling policy when waking up:
"If there are threads blocked on the mutex object referenced by mutex when
pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, resulting in the mutex becoming available,
the scheduling policy shall determine which thread shall acquire the mutex."
and similarly for condvars.
"Use PI" is not a valid answer for this.
Really FUTEX_WAKE/FUTEX_REQUEUE can't use a FIFO. I think there was a patch
floating around to use a plist there instead, which is one possibility,
another one is to keep the queue sorted by priority (and adjust whenever
priority changes - one thread can be waiting on at most one futex at a

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-12 14:46    [W:0.054 / U:2.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site