At 10:56 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> said:
>
> Mike> The page mentions persistent starvation. My own explorations
> Mike> of this issue indicate that the primary source is always
> Mike> selecting the highest priority queue.
>
>My working assumption is that the problem is a bug with the dynamic
>prioritization. The task receiving the signals calls sleep() after
>handling a signal and hence it's dynamic priority should end up higher
>than the priority of the task sending signals (since the sender never
>relinquishes the CPU voluntarily).
>
>However, I haven't actually had time to look at the relevant code, so
>I may be missing something. If you understand the issue better,
>please explain to me why this isn't a dynamic priority issue.
You're right, it looks like a corner case. It works fine here with the
attached diff.
-Mike
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:48 EST