From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16075.48579.189593.405154@napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:56:19 -0700
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@linuxia64.org
Subject: Re: web page on O(1) scheduler
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030521111037.01ed0d58@pop.gmx.net>
References: <16075.8557.309002.866895@napali.hpl.hp.com>
	<5.2.0.9.2.20030521111037.01ed0d58@pop.gmx.net>
Reply-To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1026
Lines: 22

>>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> said:

  Mike> The page mentions persistent starvation.  My own explorations
  Mike> of this issue indicate that the primary source is always
  Mike> selecting the highest priority queue.

My working assumption is that the problem is a bug with the dynamic
prioritization.  The task receiving the signals calls sleep() after
handling a signal and hence it's dynamic priority should end up higher
than the priority of the task sending signals (since the sender never
relinquishes the CPU voluntarily).

However, I haven't actually had time to look at the relevant code, so
I may be missing something.  If you understand the issue better,
please explain to me why this isn't a dynamic priority issue.

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/