Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 16:43 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 11:34:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I really can't think of any blocking kernel lock where priority 
> > inheritance would make _any_ sense at all. Please give me an example. 
> 
> I have a better example of something we currently get wrong that I
> haven't heard any RT person worry about yet.  If two tasks are sleeping
> on the same semaphore, the one to be woken up will be the first one to
> wait for it, not the highest-priority task.
> 
> Obviously, this was introduced by the wake-one semantics.  But how to
> fix it?  Should we scan the entire queue looking for the best task to
> wake?  Should we try to maintain the wait list in priority order?  Or
> should we just not care?  Should we document that we don't care?  ;-)

It's well known that this is a problem:

http://developer.osdl.org/dev/robustmutexes/src/fusyn.hg/Documentation/fusyn/fusyn-why.txt

Lee

-
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/