Re: 2.6.16-rc6-rt1

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 23:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar 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?

And it does not solve the problem of ad hoc deadlock detection at all.

	tglx


-
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/