From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos O'Donell" Subject: Re: malloc/free and priority inheritance? Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:24:02 -0400 Message-ID: <51603002.1020501@redhat.com> References: <515B647C.3080505@meduna.org> <515D7943.5000401@meduna.org> <515D808C.8090808@meduna.org> <515D93F8.5050006@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stanislav Meduna , libc-help , "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46818 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423006Ab3DFOZe (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:25:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/04/2013 11:32 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 4 April 2013 20:23, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> ... and ARM uses the generic C code. >> >> My comments in BZ#12114 still remain. Why can't we make malloc/free >> use PI locks? We need not convert lll_lock, but just make malloc-machine.h >> use a PI-aware lock? > > The trouble (as always) is to decide on when to use PI-aware locks. > Do we do that by default or do we have (*chuckle*) an environment > variable to override the default locks? Maybe this discussion is more > suitable for libc-alpha though, since we can hopefully get all > maintainers to chime in there. The number of tunables just keeps growing doesn't it? Added this to my list of tunables in the WIP document I'm writing: sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/TuningLibraryRuntimeBehavior Cheers, Carlos.