Re: NPTL mutex and the scheduling priority

["Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 08:44 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 17:10 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> > > # This is a copy of message posted libc-alpha ML.  I want to hear from
> > > # kernel people too ...
> > > 
> > > Hi.  I found that it seems NPTL's mutex does not follow the scheduling
> > > parameter.  If some threads were blocked by getting a single
> > > mutex_lock, I expect that a thread with highest priority got the lock
> > > first, but current NPTL's behaviour is different.
> > \
> > 
> > you want to use the PI futexes that are in 2.6.17-rc5-mm tree
> 
> Even for normal mutices pthread_mutex_unlock and
> pthread_cond_{signal,broadcast} is supposed to honor the RT priority and
> scheduling policy when waking up:
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_mutex_trylock.html
> "If there are threads blocked on the mutex object referenced by mutex when
> pthread_mutex_unlock() is called, resulting in the mutex becoming available,
> the scheduling policy shall determine which thread shall acquire the mutex."
> and similarly for condvars.
> "Use PI" is not a valid answer for this.
> Really FUTEX_WAKE/FUTEX_REQUEUE can't use a FIFO.  I think there was a patch
> floating around to use a plist there instead, which is one possibility,
> another one is to keep the queue sorted by priority (and adjust whenever
> priority changes - one thread can be waiting on at most one futex at a
> time).
> 

  The patch you refer to is at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114725326712391&w=2

  But maybe a better solution for condvars would be to implement
something like a futex_requeue_pi() to handle the broadcast and
only use PI futexes all along in glibc.

  Any ideas?

  Sébastien.