> From: John Baldwin <jhb@free...> > Subject: Re: Startvation of realtime piority threads > To: "Sushanth Rai" <sushanth_rai@yaho...> > Cc: freebsd-hackers@free... > Date: Monday, April 9, 2012, 9:17 AM > On Thursday, April 05, 2012 9:08:24 > pm Sushanth Rai wrote: > > I understand the downside of badly written realtime > app. In my case > application runs in userspace without making much syscalls > and by all means it > is a well behaved application. Yes, I can wire memory, > change the application > to use mutex instead of spinlock and those changes should > help but they are > still working around the problem. I still believe kernel > should not lower the > realtime priority when blocking on resources. This can lead > to priority > inversion, especially since these threads run at fixed > priorities and kernel > doesn't muck with them. > > > > As you suggested _sleep() should not adjust the > priorities for realtime > threads. > > Hmm, sched_sleep() for both SCHED_4BSD and SCHED_ULE already > does the right > thing here in HEAD. > > if (PRI_BASE(td->td_pri_class) != > PRI_TIMESHARE) > return; > > Which OS version did you see this on? > > -- > John Baldwin >
freebsd-hackers@free... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@free..."