Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261475AbVDDXBR (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:01:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261473AbVDDXBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:01:10 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:52669 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261475AbVDDXA1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:00:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.43-00 From: Steven Rostedt To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Ingo Molnar , Gene Heskett , LKML , "K.R. Foley" , Lee Revell , Rui Nuno Capela In-Reply-To: References: <200504011834.22600.gene.heskett@verizon.net> <20050402051254.GA23786@elte.hu> <1112470675.27149.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112472372.27149.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050402203550.GB16230@elte.hu> <1112474659.27149.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112479772.27149.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112486812.27149.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050404200043.GA16736@elte.hu> <1112647253.5147.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050404204725.GA17818@elte.hu> <1112649296.5147.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:59:26 -0400 Message-Id: <1112655566.5147.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1077 Lines: 28 On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 16:51 -0600, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > I'm sure a lot of the yield() users could be converted to > schedule_timeout(), some of the users i saw were for low memory conditions > where we want other tasks to make progress and complete so that we a bit > more free memory. > I've stated earlier that I was locked up in fs/inode.c with the __wait_on_freeing_inode. Can this be switched to a schedule_timeout? Of course schedule_timeout is not too good with RT as well. Although you can prevent a live_deadlock, but we bring up the problem of priority inversion again. The process needing to run can still be starved by another higher priority process that is lower in priority as the one doing the waiting. The schedule_timeout should stop the livelock. But what is the effect of switching to it? -- Steve - 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/