From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/2] futex priority based wakeup
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:08:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060510100858.GA31504@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060510112651.24a36e7b@frecb000686>
* Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net> wrote:
> in the current futex implementation, tasks are woken up in FIFO
> order, (i.e. in the order they were put to sleep). For realtime
> systems needing system wide strict realtime priority scheduling, tasks
> should be woken up in priority order.
>
> This patchset achieves this by changing the futex hash bucket list
> into a plist. Tasks waiting on a futex are enqueued in this plist
> based on their priority so that they can be woken up in priority
> order.
hm, i dont think this is enough. Basically, waking up in priority order
is just the (easier) half of the story - what you want is to also
propagate priorities when you block. We provided a complete solution via
the PI-futex patchset (currently included in -mm).
In other words: as long as locking primitives go, i dont think real-time
applications should use wakeup-priority-ordered futexes, they should use
the real thing, PI futexes.
There is one exception: when a normal futex is used as a waitqueue
without any contention properties. (for example a waitqueue for worker
threads) But those are both rare, and typically dont muster tasks with
different priorities - i.e. FIFO is good enough.
Also, there's a performance cost to this. Could you try to measure the
impact to SCHED_OTHER tasks via some pthread locking benchmark?
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-10 10:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-10 9:26 [RFC][PATCH RT 0/2] futex priority based wakeup Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-10 10:08 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-05-10 13:03 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-10 14:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-10 15:01 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-10 17:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-11 8:56 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-16 10:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-18 8:51 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-12 13:32 ` Pierre Peiffer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060510100858.GA31504@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.