Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 4 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 08:54:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege
> > > of one fair task over the other. In this case priority
> > > boosting looks excess.
> > > 
> > > On RT patch with enabled PREEMPT_RT_FULL I see a lot of
> > > rt_mutex_setprio() actions like
> > > 
> > > 	120 -> 118
> > > 	118 -> 120
> > > 
> > > They harm RT tasks.
> > 
> > That's not the main problem. The point is that it is useless and
> > therefor harming performace and throughput as well.
> >  
> > > RT patch has lazy preemtion feature, so if idea is we care
> > > about excess preemption inside fair class, we should care
> > > about excess priority inheritance too.
> > > 
> > > In case of vanila kernel the problem is the same, but there
> > > are no so many rt mutexes. Do I skip anything?
> > 
> > Almost a decade ago we decided to do the boosting for everything
> > including SCHED_OTHER due to the very simple reason that exercising
> > that code path more is likely to trigger more bugs.
> >  
> > But yes in a production environment, it's pointless for SCHED_OTHER
> > tasks.
> > 
> > Though exercising that code path as much as we can is not a bad thing
> > either. So I'd like to see that made compile time conditional on one
> > of the lock testing CONFIG items.
> > 
> > And the patch should be made against mainline, where we have the same
> > issue (reduced to PI-futexes).
> 
> And of course, if we ever get to PEP, we very much want all the classes
> to participate :)

That's true. We deal with it when it arrives :)
 
--
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/