public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: davids@webmaster.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:32:26 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <43D93FEA.3070305@symas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43D93542.9000809@yahoo.com.au>

Nick Piggin wrote:
> OK, you believe that the mutex *must* be granted to a blocking thread
> at the time of the unlock. I don't think this is unreasonable from the
> wording (because it does not seem to be completely unambiguous english),
> however think about this -
>
> A realtime system with tasks A and B, A has an RT scheduling priority of
> 1, and B is 2. A and B are both runnable, so A is running. A takes a 
> mutex
> then sleeps, B runs and ends up blocked on the mutex. A wakes up and at
> some point it drops the mutex and then tries to take it again.
>
> What happens?
>
> I haven't programmed realtime systems of any complexity, but I'd think it
> would be undesirable if A were to block and allow B to run at this point.

But why does A take the mutex in the first place? Presumably because it 
is about to execute a critical section. And also presumably, A will not 
release the mutex until it no longer has anything critical to do; 
certainly it could hold it longer if it needed to.

If A still needed the mutex, why release it and reacquire it, why not 
just hold onto it? The fact that it is being released is significant.

> Now this has nothing to do with PI or SCHED_OTHER, so behaviour is 
> exactly
> determined by our respective interpretations of what it means for "the
> scheduling policy to decide which task gets the mutex".
>
> What have I proven? Nothing ;) but perhaps my question could be answered
> by someone who knows a lot more about RT systems than I.

In the last RT work I did 12-13 years ago, there was only one high 
priority producer task and it was never allowed to block. The consumers 
just kept up as best they could (multi-proc machine of course). I've 
seldom seen a need for many priority levels. Probably not much you can 
generalzie from this though.

-- 
  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/


  reply	other threads:[~2006-01-26 21:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-01-24 22:59 e100 oops on resume Stefan Seyfried
2006-01-24 23:21 ` Mattia Dongili
2006-01-25  9:02   ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 12:11     ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 13:51       ` sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow Howard Chu
2006-01-25 14:38         ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-25 17:49         ` Christopher Friesen
2006-01-25 18:26           ` pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow) Howard Chu
2006-01-25 18:59             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-25 19:32               ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  8:51                 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 14:15                   ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-26 14:43                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 19:57                       ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26 20:27                         ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 20:46                           ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:32                             ` Howard Chu [this message]
2006-01-26 21:41                               ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:56                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 22:24                                   ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-27  8:08                                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 19:25                                       ` Philipp Matthias Hahn
2006-02-01 12:31                                       ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-27  4:27                                   ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-26 21:58                               ` Christopher Friesen
2006-01-27  4:13                               ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-27  2:16                           ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27  8:19                             ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 19:50                               ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27 20:13                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 21:05                                   ` David Schwartz
2006-01-27 21:23                                     ` Howard Chu
2006-01-27 23:31                                       ` David Schwartz
2006-01-30  8:28                         ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26 10:38                 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-30  8:35                   ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-30 11:13                     ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-31 23:18                     ` David Schwartz
2006-01-25 21:06             ` Lee Revell
2006-01-25 22:14               ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  0:16                 ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-26  0:49                   ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  1:04                     ` Lee Revell
2006-01-26  1:31                       ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26  2:05                 ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26  2:48                   ` Mark Lord
2006-01-26  3:30                     ` David Schwartz
2006-01-26  3:49                       ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  4:02                         ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  4:53                           ` Lee Revell
2006-01-26  6:14                             ` Samuel Masham
2006-01-26  8:54                 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 14:24                   ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 14:54                     ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 15:23                       ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 15:51                         ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 16:44                           ` Howard Chu
2006-01-26 17:34                             ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-26 19:00                               ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 19:14                                 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-26 21:12                                   ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 21:31                                     ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-27  7:06                                       ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2006-01-30  8:44                               ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-30  8:50                                 ` Howard Chu
2006-01-30 15:33                                   ` Kyle Moffett
2006-01-30 13:28                                 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-01-30 15:15                                   ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26 10:44                 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-26  0:08             ` Robert Hancock
2006-01-26  1:07         ` sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow David Schwartz
2006-01-26  8:30           ` Helge Hafting
2006-01-26  9:01             ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-26 10:50             ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-25 19:37       ` e100 oops on resume Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-25 20:14         ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-25 22:28           ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-26  0:28         ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-01-26  9:32           ` Pavel Machek
2006-01-26 19:02           ` Stefan Seyfried
2006-01-26 19:09             ` Olaf Kirch
2006-01-28 11:53             ` Mattia Dongili
2006-01-28 19:53               ` Jesse Brandeburg
2006-02-07  6:57                 ` Jeff Garzik
     [not found]           ` <BAY108-DAV111F6EF46F6682FEECCC1593140@phx.gbl>
     [not found]             ` <4807377b0601271404w6dbfcff6s4de1c3f785dded9f@mail.gmail.com>
2006-01-30 17:25               ` Can I do a regular read to simulate prefetch instruction? John Smith
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-30 22:01 pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow) linux
2006-01-30 23:37 linux
2006-02-01 17:06 Lee Schermerhorn

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=43D93FEA.3070305@symas.com \
    --to=hyc@symas.com \
    --cc=davids@webmaster.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    /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