LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, mingo@elte.hu, bill.huey@gmail.com,
	kevin@hilman.org, tglx@linutronix.de, cminyard@mvista.com,
	dsingleton@mvista.com, dwalker@mvista.com,
	Moiz Kohari <MKohari@novell.com>,
	Peter Morreale <PMorreale@novell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>,
	dsaxena@plexity.net, acme@redhat.com, ak@suse.de, gregkh@suse.de,
	npiggin@suse.de, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 1/9] allow rt-mutex lock-stealing to includelateral priority
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:09 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0803031051410.19405@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47CBD5CD.BA47.005A.0@novell.com>


On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gregory Haskins wrote:

> >>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:13 AM, in message
> >
> > See the issue. The RT task on CPU0 may experience huge latencies.
>
> Agreed, but equal priority threads can always cause unbounded latencies by definition.  I.e. we only guarantee to the highest thread.

It should not when they are bounded to two separate CPUs, and are the
highest priority tasks on those CPUS.  That will be hard to explain, how a
the highest prio tasks bounded to a single CPU had an unbounded latency.
With the patches presented, this can happen.

>
> > Remember, RT is worried about latencies over performance.
> > If we can not ***guarantee*** a bounded latency, then, I don't care
> > how good the perfomance is, it is not good enough for RT.
> >
> >
> > That said, here's the compromise.
> >
> > Non-RT tasks care more about overall perfomance than worst case latencies.
> > So.... See imbedded:
>
> This isn't a bad idea, but note that it means RT tasks will not get a performance boost, which is quite substantial.

Again, no performance is good enough for an RT task if it risks the
slightest chance of causing an unbounded latency.

-- Steve

>
> Note that I have substantially cleaned up this patch for the drop I will make later this week (v3).

  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-03 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-25 16:00 [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 0/9] adaptive real-time locks Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:00 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 1/9] allow rt-mutex lock-stealing to include lateral priority Gregory Haskins
2008-03-03 15:13   ` Steven Rostedt
2008-03-03 15:41     ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 1/9] allow rt-mutex lock-stealing to includelateral priority Gregory Haskins
2008-03-03 15:55       ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2008-03-03 15:55         ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 1/9] allow rt-mutex lock-stealing toincludelateral priority Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:00 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 2/9] sysctl for runtime-control of lateral mutex stealing Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 21:53   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-25 22:57     ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2008-02-25 23:00       ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-25 23:40         ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2008-02-26  1:15       ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:00 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 3/9] rearrange rt_spin_lock sleep Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 21:54   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-26  0:45     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:00 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 4/9] optimize rt lock wakeup Gregory Haskins
2008-03-03 15:37   ` Steven Rostedt
2008-03-03 15:41     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:01 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 5/9] adaptive real-time lock support Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 22:03   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-26  0:48     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-26 15:03     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-26 18:06       ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-26 18:01         ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:01 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 6/9] add a loop counter based timeout mechanism Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 22:06   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-25 22:19     ` Greg KH
2008-02-25 22:21       ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-25 22:39     ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2008-02-26 15:09     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:01 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 7/9] adaptive mutexes Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 22:09   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-26  0:52     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 16:01 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 8/9] adjust pi_lock usage in wakeup Gregory Haskins
2008-02-25 22:10   ` Pavel Machek
2008-02-25 16:01 ` [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 9/9] remove the extra call to try_to_take_lock Gregory Haskins

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0803031051410.19405@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=MKohari@novell.com \
    --cc=PMorreale@novell.com \
    --cc=SDietrich@novell.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=acme@redhat.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=bill.huey@gmail.com \
    --cc=cminyard@mvista.com \
    --cc=dsaxena@plexity.net \
    --cc=dsingleton@mvista.com \
    --cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=kevin@hilman.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [(RT RFC) PATCH v2 1/9] allow rt-mutex lock-stealing to includelateral priority' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).