public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/2] futex priority based wakeup
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 12:08:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060510100858.GA31504@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060510112651.24a36e7b@frecb000686>


* Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net> wrote:

>   in the current futex implementation, tasks are woken up in FIFO 
> order, (i.e. in the order they were put to sleep). For realtime 
> systems needing system wide strict realtime priority scheduling, tasks 
> should be woken up in priority order.
> 
>   This patchset achieves this by changing the futex hash bucket list 
> into a plist. Tasks waiting on a futex are enqueued in this plist 
> based on their priority so that they can be woken up in priority 
> order.

hm, i dont think this is enough. Basically, waking up in priority order 
is just the (easier) half of the story - what you want is to also 
propagate priorities when you block. We provided a complete solution via 
the PI-futex patchset (currently included in -mm).

In other words: as long as locking primitives go, i dont think real-time 
applications should use wakeup-priority-ordered futexes, they should use 
the real thing, PI futexes.

There is one exception: when a normal futex is used as a waitqueue 
without any contention properties. (for example a waitqueue for worker 
threads) But those are both rare, and typically dont muster tasks with 
different priorities - i.e. FIFO is good enough.

Also, there's a performance cost to this. Could you try to measure the 
impact to SCHED_OTHER tasks via some pthread locking benchmark?

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2006-05-10 10:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-05-10  9:26 [RFC][PATCH RT 0/2] futex priority based wakeup Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-10 10:08 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-05-10 13:03   ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-10 14:32     ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-10 15:01       ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-10 17:02         ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-11  8:56           ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-16 10:36             ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-18  8:51               ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-12 13:32   ` Pierre Peiffer

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=20060510100858.GA31504@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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