[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395898535.5512.72.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:35:35 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: jimmie.davis@...com.com
Cc: luto@...capital.net, oneukum@...e.de, artem_fetishev@...m.com,
peterz@...radead.org, kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Bug 71331 - mlock yields processor to lower priority process
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 04:20 +0000, jimmie.davis@...com.com wrote:
> The example code submitted into bugzilla (chase back on the thread a
> bit, there is a reference) shows the problem.
>
> Two threads, TaskA (high priority) and TaskB (low priority). Assigned
> to the same processor, explicitly for the guarantee that only one of
> them can execute at a time.
Your priority based serialization guarantee does not exist. Tasks can
be and are put to sleep. When that happens, a lower priority runnable
task will run. Whether you like that fact or not, it remains a fact.
If you don't want your lower priority task to run, why do you wake it?.
-Mike
>
--
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