mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Primiano Tucci <p.tucci@gmail.com>
To: rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Considerations on sched APIs under RT patch
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:16:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <t2nc5b2c05b1004202216pd159c9b4mbfc1dc7658fc20e7@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271804453.10448.168.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

Hi steve
> read_locks are converted into "special" rt_mutexes. The only thing
> special about them, is the owner may grab the same read lock more than
> once (recursive).
>
> If a lower priority process currently holds the tasklist_lock for write,
> when a high priority process tries to take it for read (or write for
> that matter) it will block on the lower priority process. But that lower
> priority process will acquire the priority of the higher priority
> process (priority inheritance) and will run at that priority until it
> releases the lock. Then it will go back to its low priority and the
> higher priority process will then preempt it and acquire the lock for
> read.

In your example you implied that the low priority process, holding the
lock for write, runs on the same CPU of the higher priority process
that wants to lock it for read. This is clear to me.
My problem is, in a SMP environment, what happens if a process (let's
say T1 on CPU #1) holds the lock for write (its priority does not
matter, it is not a PI problem) and now a process T0 on cpu #0 wants
to lock it for read?
The process T0 will be blocked! But who will run now on CPU 0, until
the rwlock is held by T1? Probably the next ready process on CPU #'0.
Is it right?

Thanks,
Primiano

--
 Primiano Tucci
 http://www.primianotucci.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-21  5:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-19 20:48 Primiano Tucci
2010-04-20  9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-20 21:56   ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-20 23:00     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-21  5:16       ` Primiano Tucci [this message]
2010-04-21  8:49         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-21 12:46           ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-21 19:24             ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-21 19:57               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-21 20:38                 ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-21 20:58                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-22 13:20                     ` Steven Rostedt
2010-04-22 13:50                       ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-22 13:57                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-22 15:40                           ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-22 16:28                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-22 17:48                               ` Bjoern Brandenburg
2010-04-22 19:33                               ` Primiano Tucci
2010-04-21 12:56     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-27 13:18     ` Thomas Gleixner

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=t2nc5b2c05b1004202216pd159c9b4mbfc1dc7658fc20e7@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=p.tucci@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®