Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:30:57 -0600
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: question on 2.4 scheduler, threads, and priority inversion
In-reply-to: <3V45v-tx-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-id: <426594B1.9000307@shaw.ca>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <3V45v-tx-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1348
Lines: 35

Chris Friesen wrote:
> I seem to be having an issue with 2.4 and linuxthreads.
> 
> I have a program that spawns a child thread, and that child boosts 
> itself into a realtime scheduler class.
> 
> The child then went crazy and turned into a cpu hog.  At this point, a 
> higher-priority task detected the hog, and tried to kill the process by 
> sending a "kill -9" to the main thread.  Unfortunately, it appears that 
> there is some kind of priority-inversion thing happening, as the process 
> did not die.
> 
> Is this expected behaviour?  Is there any way around this?  Do I need to 
> put the main thread at a higher priority than any of the child threads? 
>  What about the manager thread?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris

I believe that in the old LinuxThreads implementation the manager thread 
  is the one that handles all signals, so it may need its priority 
increased as well. NPTL threads likely handle this much better (there is 
no manager thread).

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/

-
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/