From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins.ml@gmail.com>
To: Mark Hansen <Mark.Hansen@cirrusrtps.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: priority based thread wakeup
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:33:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4790AAC7.2080703@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <L669EA1BDC369453cA3ACCF0A75D0F5A3.1200638498.mail.cirrusrtps.com.au@MHS>
Mark Hansen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Firstly, may I apologise as I am not a member of the LKML, and ask that
> I be CC'd in any responses that may be forthcoming.
>
> My question concerns the following patch which was incorporated into the
> 2.6.22 kernel (quoted from that change log):
>
>> Today, all threads waiting for a given futex are woken in FIFO
>> order (first waiter woken first) instead of priority order.
>>
>> This patch makes use of plist (pirotity ordered lists) instead
>> of simple list in futex_hash_bucket.
>>
>> All non-RT threads are stored with priority MAX_RT_PRIO, causing
>> them to be woken last, in FIFO order (RT-threads are woken first,
>> in priority order).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastien Dugue <sebastien.du...@bull.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peif...@bull.net>
>
> After updating to this version of the kernel, I was able to observe the
> above fix, where multiple RT threads invoking pthread_cond_wait(), and
> the highest priority thread will acquire the mutex first, after the
> thread holding the mutex calls pthread_cond_signal();
> pthread_mutex_unlock()
>
> However, since kernel 2.6.23, it seems that the functionality relating
> to this "priority based wakeup" has disappeared.
>
> I understand there have been significant changes in this kernel
> concerning the "Completely Fair Scheduler" replacing the "mainline"
> scheduler; however my understanding is that the RT functionality would
> be preserved. This does not appear to be the case based on repeating the
> experiment described above.
>
> I was wondering if this functionality is considered no longer
> desirable/necessary?
>
> If not, is it anticipated that this functionality could/would be
> included in a later kernel?
>
Hi Mark,
In a coffee deprived stupor ;), I responded to this mail in the wrong
thread, here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/18/207
Sorry for the confusion
HTH
-Greg
> Regards,
> Mark Hansen
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-18 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-18 6:31 priority based thread wakeup Mark Hansen
2008-01-18 13:33 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-01-21 4:17 ` Mark Hansen
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=4790AAC7.2080703@gmail.com \
--to=gregory.haskins.ml@gmail.com \
--cc=Mark.Hansen@cirrusrtps.com.au \
--cc=gregory.haskins@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).