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
next prev parent 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