On 08/06, Gregory Haskins wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 18:45 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > still this does not change the fundamental issue of a high prio piece of
> > > work waiting on a lower prio task.
> >        ^^^^^^^
> > waiting. This is a "key" word, and this was my (perhaps wrong) point.
> 
> Actually, I think Peter is making a really important point here.

Yes. Please see another email I just sent.

quoted text
> "Waiting" can be defined in more ways than the REQUEST/RESPONSE pattern
> that I have been rambling about.
> 
> Using Peters NIC vs USB example:  What if a NIC driver is using a
> workqueue as a bottom-half mechanism for its RX packet queuing.  In a
> nice RT environment it would be highly ideal if we allow the deferred
> work to complete with respect to the priority that was assigned to the
> subsystem.
> 
> So while the submitter isn't technically blocking on the work, the
> application that is receiving packets is now subject to the arbitrary
> priority of the keventd as opposed to the NIC irq.  Thus there is still
> "waiting" being subject to inversion, its just not in a REQUEST/RESPONSE
> pattern.

Oleg.

-
unsubscribe notice
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/