Thread starvation with mutex

Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky inaky.perez-gonzalez at
Thu Feb 19 02:10:56 UTC 2004

> From: Jamie Lokier [mailto:jamie at]
> Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> > If you have strict ownership transferal _and_ priority sorted wake ups
> > in the kernel, then that problem should not be an issue at all,
> Yes, if you have both those things.
> I was thinking of an old RT futex patch which simply offered priority
> sorted wakeups, and was not sure if that's what this thread's question
> about "RTNTPL offering complete RT support" referred to.

Me neither [puzzled and confused again] -- let's say that old RT futex
patch provided the foundation for one of the things RT needs (wake up
or unlock by priority order). 

> The down side is that if you always have strict ownership transferral,
> you get very poor performance in a large class of algorithms which
> take and release locks regularly - such as producer-consumer queuing
> to pick a classic one.

And that's why it is made optional or switchable, so you can turn in
on or off depending on the need.

In the other thread I will explain all the details, so we can kill
this one...

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)

More information about the Phil-list mailing list