[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070806153816.GA265@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:38:16 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
On 08/06, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:45 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > >
> > > still this does not change the fundamental issue of a high prio piece of
> > > work waiting on a lower prio task.
> > ^^^^^^^
> > waiting. This is a "key" word, and this was my (perhaps wrong) point.
>
> Actually, I think Peter is making a really important point here.
Yes. Please see another email I just sent.
> "Waiting" can be defined in more ways than the REQUEST/RESPONSE pattern
> that I have been rambling about.
>
> Using Peters NIC vs USB example: What if a NIC driver is using a
> workqueue as a bottom-half mechanism for its RX packet queuing. In a
> nice RT environment it would be highly ideal if we allow the deferred
> work to complete with respect to the priority that was assigned to the
> subsystem.
>
> So while the submitter isn't technically blocking on the work, the
> application that is receiving packets is now subject to the arbitrary
> priority of the keventd as opposed to the NIC irq. Thus there is still
> "waiting" being subject to inversion, its just not in a REQUEST/RESPONSE
> pattern.
Oleg.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists