Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Here we have more unnecessary schedules.  So the condition to grab a 
> lock should be:
> 
> 1. not owned.
> 2. partially owned, and the owner is not RT.
> 3. partially owned but the owner is RT and so is the grabber, and the
>     grabber's priority is >= the owner's priority.

there's another approach that could solve this problem: let the 
scheduler sort it all out. Esben Nielsen had this suggestion a couple of 
months ago - i didnt follow it because i thought that technique would 
create too many runnable tasks, but maybe that was a mistake. If we do 
the owning of the lock once the wakee hits the CPU we avoid the 'partial 
owner' problem, and we have the scheduler sort out priorities and 
policies.

but i think i like the 'partial owner' (or rather 'owner pending') 
technique a bit better, because it controls concurrency explicitly, and 
it would thus e.g. allow another trick: when a new owner 'steals' a lock 
from another in-flight task, then we could 'unwakeup' that in-flight 
thread which could thus avoid two more context-switches on e.g. SMP 
systems: hitting the CPU and immediately blocking on the lock. (But this 
is a second-phase optimization which needs some core scheduler magic as 
well, i guess i'll be the one to code it up.)

	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/