From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <469FA616.9040900@domain.hid> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:57:42 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <469BF43D.1040704@domain.hid> <46973753.6010206@domain.hid> <4694ED98.6000000@domain.hid> <46937E70.10903@domain.hid> <469345EB.6060302@domain.hid> <22554361.1184054457326.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <2026261.1184070574283.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <1982070.1184078400928.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <4693A702.1010604@domain.hid> <913919.1184311634860.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <21969019.1184569651818.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <29054475.1184842736562.JavaMail.ngmail@domain.hid> <469F4A98.3080307@domain.hid> <1184847549.28303.46.camel@domain.hid> <469F5BA5.1030407@domain.hid> <1184858093.28303.85.camel@domain.hid> <469F84B3.6070104@domain.hid> <1184861035.28303.108.camel@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <1184861035.28303.108.camel@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig27C0674C7B06131407F8BBE2" Sender: jan.kiszka@domain.hid Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-help] Sporadic PC freeze after rt_task_start List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rpm@xenomai.org Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig27C0674C7B06131407F8BBE2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philippe Gerum wrote: > Ok, the rpilock is local, the nesting level is bearable, let's focus on= > putting this thingy straight. Well, redesigning things may not necessarily improve the situation, but reducing the amount of special RPI code might be worth a thought: What is so special about RPI compared to standard prio inheritance? What about [wild idea ahead!] modelling RPI as a virtual mutex that is permanently held by the ROOT thread and which relaxed threads try to acquire? They would never get it, rather drop the request (and thus the inheritance) once they are to be hardened again or Linux starts to schedule around. *If* that is possible, we would A) reuse existing code heavily, B) lack any argument for separate locking, C) make things far easier to understand and review. Sounds too beautiful to work, I'm afraid... Jan --------------enig27C0674C7B06131407F8BBE2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGn6YWniDOoMHTA+kRAmT1AJ0cGD8sTZuk+UoDYN3PEzMflFT37wCeJL/E JVU1wDVv6t6TnknKQb7QAM0= =frK0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig27C0674C7B06131407F8BBE2--