At 11:52 AM 5/22/2003 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:At 10:56 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> 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.
Out of curiosity, is someone hitting that with a real program?
-Mike
aside:
if so, I suppose nano-ticks may be needed....
Attachment:
xx.diff
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
contest.log
Description: Binary data