From: Raz <raziebe@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Lior Brafman <LBrafman@manz.com>,
Torsten Scherer <TScherer@manz.com>,
Rasty Slutsker <RSlutsker@manz.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH 2/2] priority System V Semaphores
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:00:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPB=Z-oaKQz_bSPag3H+i81cLVahSmvAzmSNYnmfYt_Kn8sGPQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1324544352.24803.9.camel@twins>
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, raz ben yehuda wrote:
>> Vxworks is the use case. And there are plenty of companies with
>> vxWorks software and in i believe they will migrate sooner or later to
>> PreemptRT. My current company uses old wrapper software that implements
>> vxWorks semaphores as system V semaphores. vxWorks semaphores have a priority
>> feature which is widely used.
>> I will probably change it some time in the future to posix semaphores , but posix
>> semaphores are implemented in glibc with futexes and atomic ops and i rather
>> mess with kernel and not glibc. funny , but true. glibc is harder.
>
> Semaphores are a fscking trainwreck for real-time programming. Don't use
> them, full stop. If you do, you're doing it wrong, it's really that
> simple.
>
> Use PI mutexes, which are already fully supported in glibc, no extra
> patching needed.
>
> Full NAK for any and all priority fudging for any semaphore
> implementation.
please correct me if am wrong, " posix semaphores
are implemented with pi mutex. ..?" I need a counting semaphore.
vxWorks priority/fifo semaphores are different from posix semaphores in
that the behaviour is defined on the semaphore and not the thread.
Q: what happens if I want one posix semahore to be FIFO and another
posix semaphore to be PRIO while both are used by the same
thread.should i to change policies each time ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-22 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-20 22:23 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] priority System V Semaphores raz ben yehuda
2011-12-21 18:31 ` Manfred Spraul
2011-12-21 20:48 ` raz ben yehuda
2011-12-22 3:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-12-22 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-12-22 13:00 ` Raz [this message]
2011-12-22 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
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='CAPB=Z-oaKQz_bSPag3H+i81cLVahSmvAzmSNYnmfYt_Kn8sGPQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=raziebe@gmail.com \
--cc=LBrafman@manz.com \
--cc=RSlutsker@manz.com \
--cc=TScherer@manz.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).