[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: [PATCH 2.5.64] Real-time futexes (priority inheritance/protec tion/robust support) take 4



"Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" schrieb am 27.03.03 20:53:09:
[...]
> > Given: three threads A > B > C [priority wise], the PI
> > lock L1 and the PP lock L2. The locks are used as follows:
> > 
> >   thread A: L1
> >   thread B: L2
> >   thread C: L1, L2 [nested].
> > 
> > The L2's ceilings is set to prty(B).
> > 
> > t1: C locks L1 and gets preempted by now-ready-to-run B
> > 
> > t2: B locks L2 and gets preempted by now-ready-to-run A
> > 
> > t3: A attempts to lock L1... now A gets blocked on the
> >     PI lock L1 and thread C inherits the A's priority
> > 
> > t4: C gets scheduled and attempts to lock L2... L2 is a
> >     PP lock (note that its ceiling is now less than C's
> >     effective priority which is now equal to prty(A)).
> >     L2 is currently locked by B. Now, let's assume that
> >     you'll allow it to proceed despite a "ceiling
> >     violation" (you'll use the C's "static" priority).
> >     Thread C gets blocked on the PP lock L2.
> > 
> > t5: B gets scheduled and runs, runs, runs... uhmm, and
> >     The Mars Pathfinder mission fails: ;-)
> 
> Well, let me see if I screwed up something here, but, in t5 both C and B
> acquired L1 and L2; A was blocked by L1 on t3 and C was blocked by L2 on t4
> so it makes sense that B runs, and runs, and runs, ... I don't think it is
> "conceptually" wrong [although I really think it is _not_ something you
> should do in a design] - for starters, mixing pi and pp - and sure the
> timings would be wrong or B will keep going until B ends its thing and
> unlocks. What's wrong? 

If you'd allow C to block on L2 using its "static priority" then 
C wouldn't preempt B after B unlocks L2. Even if you'd use the C's 
"effective priority" (relying on priority ordered wakeup with 
preemption on unlock), another thread (say "X") with a priority
"prty(A) > prty(X) > prty(B)" may preempt B and that might result 
in unbounded priority inversion problem with respect to A. OTOH, 
things just can't go wrong if you'd use effective priorities and 
when "ceiling(L2) >= effective_prty(C)". Correct?

regards,
alexander.

______________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Auslands-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail erreichen Sie Ihre Freunde auf
der ganzen Welt - http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021171





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]