Re: priority inversion

Marc Lehmann (pcg@goof.com)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:55:29 +0200

On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 11:50:55AM -0600, Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@timpanogas.com> wrote:
> Priority Inversion is **BAD BUSINESS**. Someone whould fix whatever this
> person is complaining about. I agree that priority inheritance is slow and
> makes for **FAT** sync object code, but it's either this or throw priorities
> out of the window in the kernel proper since we will see **LOTS** of
> deadlocks and busted applications if an inversion model is what we end up
> with.

Linux has had this RT support for _quite_ some time. Other unices had as
well. It would be nice to have priority inheritance, but its by no means
as crucial as you describe it ;)

--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|

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