At Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:37:22 -0400,
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > So this can be a problem, if the softirq function holds a lock of a high
> > > priority task, and is running boosted. If another timer goes off with a
> > > lower priority, we can lower the priority of the softirqd and lose the
> > > inherited priority that it was running at.
> >
> > There is a check for that inside setscheduler():
> > p->prio = rt_mutex_getprio(p);
>
> OK, you are right about this. The PI chain should not be affected. But
> this could still be a problem if the softirq was running at a high prio
> for a task when a lower prio callback needs to be made. It looks like
> timer is removed from the base before the function runs. So when the
> interrupt looks at the base to determine the priority to set it at, it
> might actually lower the priority of a running hrtimer thread.
The correct solution is to run the callback in the context of
the thread which will receive it and get rid of the softirq.
I experimented with this already, but its more than a saturday
afternoon project.
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]
