From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>
Cc: "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@digeo.com>,
"'george anzinger'" <george@mvista.com>,
"'joe.korty@ccur.com'" <joe.korty@ccur.com>,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Li, Adam" <adam.li@intel.com>
Subject: RE: O(1) scheduler seems to lock up on sched_FIFO and sched_RR ta sks
Date: 19 Jun 2003 11:36:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1056047804.1066.19.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A46BBDB345A7D5118EC90002A5072C780E04087F@orsmsx116.jf.intel.com>
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 11:31, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> I don't think is ideal either, but it is the only way I see where we
> can make sure that no user thread is going to stomp over the kernel
> toes and cause a deadlock (this is a extreme, but it can happen).
Hmm, I guess a deadlock _is_ possible but I think the issue is more of
starvation.
And we can prevent starvation just by running the kernel thread at
FIFO/99, because then it will never be starved by a higher priority
task. If the RT task being starved is also at priority 99, it will
eventually block (as in our example, on console I/O) and let the kernel
thread run. If the RT task being starved is lower priority, then there
is nothing to worry about.
I guess a real deadlock could only occur if the FIFO/99 task does not
block on the resource the kernel thread is providing but busy loops
waiting for it.
It is all a trade off, and rarely a pleasant one...
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-19 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-19 18:31 O(1) scheduler seems to lock up on sched_FIFO and sched_RR ta sks Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 18:36 ` Robert Love [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-20 2:53 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 19:22 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 6:52 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 17:43 ` Robert Love
2003-06-19 6:06 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 6:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-06-19 16:00 ` george anzinger
2003-06-19 17:19 ` 'joe.korty@ccur.com'
2003-06-19 17:23 ` Robert Love
2003-06-19 17:28 ` Joe Korty
2003-06-19 4:38 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 2:55 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 1:44 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2003-06-19 1:58 ` Robert Love
2003-06-19 2:02 ` george anzinger
2003-06-19 4:34 ` 'joe.korty@ccur.com'
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=1056047804.1066.19.camel@localhost \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=adam.li@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com \
--cc=joe.korty@ccur.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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