2010-01-20 20:59:50

by Thomas Gleixner

Subject: [patch 0/3] sched: Make Priority Inheritance POSIX compliant

The current PI implementation violates POSIX scheduling semantics when
a thread is deboosted. The following patch series adresses this.

Thanks and Kudos go to Mathias Weber and Carsten Emde for analysis,
test cases and initial workaround patches.

Thanks,

tglx

2010-01-20 21:07:07

by Peter Zijlstra

Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] sched: Make Priority Inheritance POSIX compliant

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:58 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The current PI implementation violates POSIX scheduling semantics when
> a thread is deboosted. The following patch series adresses this.
>
> Thanks and Kudos go to Mathias Weber and Carsten Emde for analysis,
> test cases and initial workaround patches.

These look fine to me,

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

2010-01-20 22:00:09

by John Kacur

Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] sched: Make Priority Inheritance POSIX compliant

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:58 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The current PI implementation violates POSIX scheduling semantics when
>> a thread is deboosted. The following patch series adresses this.
>>
>> Thanks and Kudos go to Mathias Weber and Carsten Emde for analysis,
>> test cases and initial workaround patches.

Oh, that sounds good - would you like to share the test cases for our
rt-test suite?

>
> These look fine to me,
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

2010-01-21 01:00:31

by Carsten Emde

Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] sched: Make Priority Inheritance POSIX compliant

On 01/20/2010 09:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The current PI implementation violates POSIX scheduling semantics when
> a thread is deboosted. The following patch series addresses this.

I can confirm that this patch series fixes the incorrect scheduling
behavior as observed in our test case.

Thanks, Thomas!

Tested-by: Carsten Emde <[email protected]>

2010-01-21 16:24:19

by Weber, Mathias

Subject: RE: [patch 0/3] sched: Make Priority Inheritance POSIX compliant

On 01/20/2010 09:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>The current PI implementation violates POSIX scheduling semantics when
>a thread is deboosted. The following patch series adresses this.

I did rerun the test case with this patches applied and I can confirm
that this fixes the incorrect scheduling behavior in our test case.

Thanks, Thomas and Carsten for your help.

Tested-by: Mathias Weber <[email protected]>