lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 08:59 -0400, James H. Anderson wrote:
>
> Raistlin wrote:
> > Also, I'm not sure I can find in the FMLP paper information about the
> > possibility of a task to suspend itself (e.g., I/O completion) while
> > holding a short lock... I assume this is not recommended, but may be
> > wrong, and, in that case, I hope Prof. Anderson and Bjorn will excuse
> > and correct me. :-)
> >
> >
> This is a really excellent point and something I probably should have
> mentioned. We developed the FMLP strictly for real-time (only)
> workloads. We were specifically looking at protecting memory-resident
> resources (not I/O). The FMLP would have to be significantly extended
> to work in settings where these assumptions don't hold.

One thing I've been thinking about is extending lockdep to help verify
things like this.

If we were to annotate a syscall/trap with something like:

lockdep_assume_rt()

And teach lockdep about non-RT blocking objects, we could validate that
the callchain down from lockdep_assume_rt() would not indeed contain a
non-RT resource, but also that we don't take locks which might in other
another code path.

That is, suppose:

sys_foo()
lockdep_assume_rt()
mutex_lock(&my_lock)

vs

sys_bar()
mutex_lock(&my_lock)
down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)

vs

page-fault
down_read(&mm->mmap_sem)
lock_page(page)

Would indeed generate a warning because mmap_sem is known to block on
IO, and there is a dependency (through sys_bar()) between my_lock and
mmap_sem, therefore sys_foo()'s assumption is invalid.





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-16 15:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans