From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932759AbVITOXf (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:23:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932760AbVITOXe (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:23:34 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:29946 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932759AbVITOXe (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:23:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:23:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@localhost.localdomain To: Ingo Molnar cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-2.6.13-rt14] Priority inversion bug In-Reply-To: <20050920133706.GA4855@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <1127162309.5097.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050920133706.GA4855@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > thanks - added it to my tree. I'm wondering why it never showed up in > practice? How do we know if it hasn't? It wouldn't bug, you may just have a longer latency on the higher priority process than what should be. It did happen on my kernel, and the way I found that it did, was that I had a test in the passing of ownership to make sure that the one that got the lock is indeed the highest priority process. Without this check, we probably would never know. -- Steve