On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 00:34 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> > Your method is tempting, but I do not see how it works out right now
>
> It works for PI.
Well, works and effective are two things. In the worst case it
introduces scheduler floods.
> It might give false positives for deadlock detection even
> without signals involved. But that might be solved by simply checking
> again.
Which is even more broken. Rechecking is less deterministic as the
global lock fall back solution.
> If it is stored on a task when they blocked on a lock it
> could be seen if they had released and reobtained the task since the last
> traversal.
-ENOPARSE
> If I should choose between a 100% certain deadlock detection and
> rescheduling while doing PI I would choose that latter as that gives a
> deterministic RT system. Are there at all applications depending on
> deadlock detection or is it only for debug perposes anyway?
No, userspace can request deadlock checking and we have to return
-EDEADLK in that case.
[EDEADLK]
A deadlock condition was detected or the current thread already
owns the mutex.
Returning false positives might break well designed applications and
prevent real deadlock detection.
Btw, your get/put_task proposal adds two atomic ops. Atomic ops are
implicit memory barriers and therefor you add two extra slow downs into
the non conflict case.
tglx
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
