From: "Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/2] futex priority based wakeup
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:03:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1147266235.3969.31.camel@frecb000686> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060510100858.GA31504@elte.hu>
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 12:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net> wrote:
>
> > in the current futex implementation, tasks are woken up in FIFO
> > order, (i.e. in the order they were put to sleep). For realtime
> > systems needing system wide strict realtime priority scheduling, tasks
> > should be woken up in priority order.
> >
> > This patchset achieves this by changing the futex hash bucket list
> > into a plist. Tasks waiting on a futex are enqueued in this plist
> > based on their priority so that they can be woken up in priority
> > order.
>
> hm, i dont think this is enough. Basically, waking up in priority order
> is just the (easier) half of the story - what you want is to also
> propagate priorities when you block. We provided a complete solution via
> the PI-futex patchset (currently included in -mm).
>
> In other words: as long as locking primitives go, i dont think real-time
> applications should use wakeup-priority-ordered futexes, they should use
> the real thing, PI futexes.
Yeah, that's right as long as userland pthread_mutexes are used, but
currently, pthread_condvars do not use PI-futexes. Therefore when we
have some threads sleeping on a condvar and the condvar is broadcasted,
those blocked threads are woken up through futex_requeue() in the order
they were put to sleep and not in their priority order.
Maybe the pthread_cond_*() function should be made to use the
PI-futexes support in glibc.
>
> There is one exception: when a normal futex is used as a waitqueue
> without any contention properties. (for example a waitqueue for worker
> threads) But those are both rare, and typically dont muster tasks with
> different priorities - i.e. FIFO is good enough.
>
> Also, there's a performance cost to this. Could you try to measure the
> impact to SCHED_OTHER tasks via some pthread locking benchmark?
Right, I will try to quantify the impact for SCHED_OTHER tasks. Any
pointers to such a benchmark?
Thanks,
Sébastien.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-10 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-10 9:26 Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-10 10:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-05-10 13:03 ` Sébastien Dugué [this message]
2006-05-10 14:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-10 15:01 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-10 17:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-05-11 8:56 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-16 10:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2006-05-18 8:51 ` Sébastien Dugué
2006-05-12 13:32 ` Pierre Peiffer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1147266235.3969.31.camel@frecb000686 \
--to=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome