Re: 2.6.16-rc6-rt1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> >
> > * Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > no. We have to run deadlock detection to avoid things like circular lock
> > dependencies causing an infinite schedule+wakeup 'storm' during priority
> > boosting. (like possible with your wakeup based method i think)
> No, all tasks would just settle on the highest priority and then the
> wakeups would stop.

you are right, that shouldnt be possible. But how about other, SMP 
artifacts? What if the woken up task runs on another CPU, and the whole 
chain of boosting is thus delayed?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/