On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Joe Korty wrote:
> >
> > The Mars Pathfinder incident is sufficient proof that some solution to
> > the priority inversion problem is required in real systems.
>
> Ehh.
>
> The Mars Pathfinder is just about the worst case "real system", and if I
> recall correctly, the reason it was able to continue was _not_ because it
> handled priority inversion, but because it reset itself every 24 hours or
> something like that, and had debugging facilities..
>
> The _real_ lesson you should take away from it is not that priority
> inheritance is a good solution to priority inversion, but that having a
> failsafe switch when everthing goes wrong is critical. You don't know
> _what_ bug you'll encounter.
>
> The bug itself could have been solved without priority inheritance,
> although I think in this case enabling that in VxWorks was the particular
> solution to the problem as being the least invasive.
>
> Personally, I don't care what user space does. If some app wants to use
> priority inheritance to solve its bugs, that's fine. But it's like
> recursive locks: it's generally a _bandaid_ for bad locking. I definitely
> don't want the kernel depending on either.
So how does one handle real-time tasks that must contend with locks within
the kernel that is shared with low priority tasks? Do you prefer the RTAI
approach?
-- Steve
-
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]
