linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
@ 2015-03-17 20:10 Ronny Meeus
  2015-04-30 16:34 ` Ronny Meeus
  2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ronny Meeus @ 2015-03-17 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

I'm using a patched kernel I get from Monta-Vista, it is based on the
3.10 kernel with some RT patches.
We ported an application from pSOS RTOS to Linux using the
Xenomai-Mercury (=library to map pSOS task to POSIX threads).

One of the patches applied to our kernel is:
"[PATCH RT 3/4] sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler" (see
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/77).
I see that the code is today also present in the mainline kernel (for
example in 3.19).

We have several threads running in the real-time priority domain.
ThreadA: running at prio -33.
ThreadB: running at prio -35.

ThreadA obtains a PI protected mutex and continues to execute code in
the critical section.
ThreadB tries to obtain the same mutex and this makes the kernel boost
the priority of ThreadA to -35.

While holding the lock, ThreadA changes its priority to -99 to
implement a critical section (Xenomai internals). After a short
period, the latter critical section is left and the call to lower the
priority to its original one (-33) is issued to the kernel.

I would expect that at this moment the priority is lowered to -35
since this is the priority of the thread waiting on the mutex (TheadB)
but instead the priority is not changed and stays at -99. (Because of
the patch mentioned before. The relevant part of the code is also
copied below).
Since the critical section takes rather long, we start to miss
important events processed by higher priority threads.

If I disable the code introduced by the patch, the events are not missed.

My question about this behavior: According to me it is not correct to
keep the thread at the higher priority and "assume" that the critical
section will not take long anymore.
In my opinion the only correct solution is to lower the priority of
the calling thread to the highest prio of "the new-priority (-33)" and
"the priority of the tasks waiting on the mutex (-35)".

Thanks.

Best regards,
Ronny


3408 static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
3409                                 const struct sched_attr *attr,
3410                                 bool user)

3596         /*
3597          * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
3598          *
3599          * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
3600          * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
3601          * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
3602          * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
3603          * itself.
3604          */
3605         if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
3606                 __setscheduler_params(p, attr);
3607                 task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
3608                 return 0;
3609         }

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-03-17 20:10 Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler Ronny Meeus
@ 2015-04-30 16:34 ` Ronny Meeus
  2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ronny Meeus @ 2015-04-30 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm using a patched kernel I get from Monta-Vista, it is based on the
> 3.10 kernel with some RT patches.
> We ported an application from pSOS RTOS to Linux using the
> Xenomai-Mercury (=library to map pSOS task to POSIX threads).
>
> One of the patches applied to our kernel is:
> "[PATCH RT 3/4] sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler" (see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/77).
> I see that the code is today also present in the mainline kernel (for
> example in 3.19).
>
> We have several threads running in the real-time priority domain.
> ThreadA: running at prio -33.
> ThreadB: running at prio -35.
>
> ThreadA obtains a PI protected mutex and continues to execute code in
> the critical section.
> ThreadB tries to obtain the same mutex and this makes the kernel boost
> the priority of ThreadA to -35.
>
> While holding the lock, ThreadA changes its priority to -99 to
> implement a critical section (Xenomai internals). After a short
> period, the latter critical section is left and the call to lower the
> priority to its original one (-33) is issued to the kernel.
>
> I would expect that at this moment the priority is lowered to -35
> since this is the priority of the thread waiting on the mutex (TheadB)
> but instead the priority is not changed and stays at -99. (Because of
> the patch mentioned before. The relevant part of the code is also
> copied below).
> Since the critical section takes rather long, we start to miss
> important events processed by higher priority threads.
>
> If I disable the code introduced by the patch, the events are not missed.
>
> My question about this behavior: According to me it is not correct to
> keep the thread at the higher priority and "assume" that the critical
> section will not take long anymore.
> In my opinion the only correct solution is to lower the priority of
> the calling thread to the highest prio of "the new-priority (-33)" and
> "the priority of the tasks waiting on the mutex (-35)".
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
> Ronny
>
>
> 3408 static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> 3409                                 const struct sched_attr *attr,
> 3410                                 bool user)
>
> 3596         /*
> 3597          * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
> 3598          *
> 3599          * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
> 3600          * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
> 3601          * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
> 3602          * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
> 3603          * itself.
> 3604          */
> 3605         if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
> 3606                 __setscheduler_params(p, attr);
> 3607                 task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
> 3608                 return 0;
> 3609         }


Any help would be appreciated.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-03-17 20:10 Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler Ronny Meeus
  2015-04-30 16:34 ` Ronny Meeus
@ 2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
  2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
  2015-04-30 17:28   ` Steven Rostedt
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Galbraith @ 2015-04-30 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ronny Meeus; +Cc: linux-kernel, Steven Rostedt

LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
that patch.

/me adds CC, and tags (again) to take a peek.

On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:10 +0100, Ronny Meeus wrote:
> I'm using a patched kernel I get from Monta-Vista, it is based on the
> 3.10 kernel with some RT patches.
> We ported an application from pSOS RTOS to Linux using the
> Xenomai-Mercury (=library to map pSOS task to POSIX threads).
> 
> One of the patches applied to our kernel is:
> "[PATCH RT 3/4] sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler" (see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/77).
> I see that the code is today also present in the mainline kernel (for
> example in 3.19).
> 
> We have several threads running in the real-time priority domain.
> ThreadA: running at prio -33.
> ThreadB: running at prio -35.
> 
> ThreadA obtains a PI protected mutex and continues to execute code in
> the critical section.
> ThreadB tries to obtain the same mutex and this makes the kernel boost
> the priority of ThreadA to -35.
> 
> While holding the lock, ThreadA changes its priority to -99 to
> implement a critical section (Xenomai internals). After a short
> period, the latter critical section is left and the call to lower the
> priority to its original one (-33) is issued to the kernel.
> 
> I would expect that at this moment the priority is lowered to -35
> since this is the priority of the thread waiting on the mutex (TheadB)
> but instead the priority is not changed and stays at -99. (Because of
> the patch mentioned before. The relevant part of the code is also
> copied below).
> Since the critical section takes rather long, we start to miss
> important events processed by higher priority threads.
> 
> If I disable the code introduced by the patch, the events are not missed.
> 
> My question about this behavior: According to me it is not correct to
> keep the thread at the higher priority and "assume" that the critical
> section will not take long anymore.
> In my opinion the only correct solution is to lower the priority of
> the calling thread to the highest prio of "the new-priority (-33)" and
> "the priority of the tasks waiting on the mutex (-35)".
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ronny
> 
> 
> 3408 static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> 3409                                 const struct sched_attr *attr,
> 3410                                 bool user)
> 
> 3596         /*
> 3597          * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
> 3598          *
> 3599          * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
> 3600          * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
> 3601          * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
> 3602          * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
> 3603          * itself.
> 3604          */
> 3605         if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
> 3606                 __setscheduler_params(p, attr);
> 3607                 task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
> 3608                 return 0;
> 3609         }
> --
> 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/



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
@ 2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
  2015-04-30 17:27     ` Mike Galbraith
  2015-04-30 17:29     ` Steven Rostedt
  2015-04-30 17:28   ` Steven Rostedt
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Davidlohr Bueso @ 2015-04-30 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: Ronny Meeus, linux-kernel, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
> introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
> that patch.

Adding tglx as well, who's the actual author.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
@ 2015-04-30 17:27     ` Mike Galbraith
  2015-04-30 17:29     ` Steven Rostedt
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mike Galbraith @ 2015-04-30 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Davidlohr Bueso
  Cc: Ronny Meeus, linux-kernel, Steven Rostedt, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 10:23 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
> > introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
> > that patch.
> 
> Adding tglx as well, who's the actual author.

Oops... LKML is a high volume list, some recipients thereof possessing
the reading skills of a goat :)



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
  2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
@ 2015-04-30 17:28   ` Steven Rostedt
  2015-05-06  3:14     ` Ronny Meeus
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2015-04-30 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: Ronny Meeus, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:05:02 +0200
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:

> LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
> introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
> that patch.
> 
> /me adds CC, and tags (again) to take a peek.

Thanks Mike, although I'm not the author of the patch ;-)  See the
"From:" tag at the beginning of the patch.

> 
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:10 +0100, Ronny Meeus wrote:
> > I'm using a patched kernel I get from Monta-Vista, it is based on the
> > 3.10 kernel with some RT patches.
> > We ported an application from pSOS RTOS to Linux using the
> > Xenomai-Mercury (=library to map pSOS task to POSIX threads).
> > 
> > One of the patches applied to our kernel is:
> > "[PATCH RT 3/4] sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler" (see
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/77).
> > I see that the code is today also present in the mainline kernel (for
> > example in 3.19).
> > 
> > We have several threads running in the real-time priority domain.
> > ThreadA: running at prio -33.
> > ThreadB: running at prio -35.
> > 
> > ThreadA obtains a PI protected mutex and continues to execute code in
> > the critical section.
> > ThreadB tries to obtain the same mutex and this makes the kernel boost
> > the priority of ThreadA to -35.
> > 
> > While holding the lock, ThreadA changes its priority to -99 to
> > implement a critical section (Xenomai internals). After a short
> > period, the latter critical section is left and the call to lower the
> > priority to its original one (-33) is issued to the kernel.
> > 
> > I would expect that at this moment the priority is lowered to -35
> > since this is the priority of the thread waiting on the mutex (TheadB)
> > but instead the priority is not changed and stays at -99. (Because of
> > the patch mentioned before. The relevant part of the code is also
> > copied below).
> > Since the critical section takes rather long, we start to miss
> > important events processed by higher priority threads.
> > 
> > If I disable the code introduced by the patch, the events are not missed.
> > 
> > My question about this behavior: According to me it is not correct to
> > keep the thread at the higher priority and "assume" that the critical
> > section will not take long anymore.
> > In my opinion the only correct solution is to lower the priority of
> > the calling thread to the highest prio of "the new-priority (-33)" and
> > "the priority of the tasks waiting on the mutex (-35)".

I agree, the proper solution is to change it back to -35. And we have a
way to do that too. I think I can come up with a solution.

-- Steve


> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Ronny
> > 
> > 
> > 3408 static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> > 3409                                 const struct sched_attr *attr,
> > 3410                                 bool user)
> > 
> > 3596         /*
> > 3597          * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
> > 3598          *
> > 3599          * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
> > 3600          * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
> > 3601          * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
> > 3602          * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
> > 3603          * itself.
> > 3604          */
> > 3605         if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
> > 3606                 __setscheduler_params(p, attr);
> > 3607                 task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
> > 3608                 return 0;
> > 3609         }
> > --
> > 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/
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
  2015-04-30 17:27     ` Mike Galbraith
@ 2015-04-30 17:29     ` Steven Rostedt
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2015-04-30 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Davidlohr Bueso
  Cc: Mike Galbraith, Ronny Meeus, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:23:10 -0700
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 19:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
> > introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
> > that patch.
> 
> Adding tglx as well, who's the actual author.

This is one of the few times it's OK not to trim emails. When you add
someone new to the Cc, otherwise they have no idea what this email is
about.

-- Steve

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-04-30 17:28   ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2015-05-06  3:14     ` Ronny Meeus
  2015-05-06  3:23       ` Steven Rostedt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ronny Meeus @ 2015-05-06  3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:05:02 +0200
> Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> LKML is a very high volume list, if you're seeing problems that were
>> introduced by a particular patch, it's a good idea to CC the author of
>> that patch.
>>
>> /me adds CC, and tags (again) to take a peek.
>
> Thanks Mike, although I'm not the author of the patch ;-)  See the
> "From:" tag at the beginning of the patch.
>
>>
>> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 21:10 +0100, Ronny Meeus wrote:
>> > I'm using a patched kernel I get from Monta-Vista, it is based on the
>> > 3.10 kernel with some RT patches.
>> > We ported an application from pSOS RTOS to Linux using the
>> > Xenomai-Mercury (=library to map pSOS task to POSIX threads).
>> >
>> > One of the patches applied to our kernel is:
>> > "[PATCH RT 3/4] sched: Consider pi boosting in setscheduler" (see
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/22/77).
>> > I see that the code is today also present in the mainline kernel (for
>> > example in 3.19).
>> >
>> > We have several threads running in the real-time priority domain.
>> > ThreadA: running at prio -33.
>> > ThreadB: running at prio -35.
>> >
>> > ThreadA obtains a PI protected mutex and continues to execute code in
>> > the critical section.
>> > ThreadB tries to obtain the same mutex and this makes the kernel boost
>> > the priority of ThreadA to -35.
>> >
>> > While holding the lock, ThreadA changes its priority to -99 to
>> > implement a critical section (Xenomai internals). After a short
>> > period, the latter critical section is left and the call to lower the
>> > priority to its original one (-33) is issued to the kernel.
>> >
>> > I would expect that at this moment the priority is lowered to -35
>> > since this is the priority of the thread waiting on the mutex (TheadB)
>> > but instead the priority is not changed and stays at -99. (Because of
>> > the patch mentioned before. The relevant part of the code is also
>> > copied below).
>> > Since the critical section takes rather long, we start to miss
>> > important events processed by higher priority threads.
>> >
>> > If I disable the code introduced by the patch, the events are not missed.
>> >
>> > My question about this behavior: According to me it is not correct to
>> > keep the thread at the higher priority and "assume" that the critical
>> > section will not take long anymore.
>> > In my opinion the only correct solution is to lower the priority of
>> > the calling thread to the highest prio of "the new-priority (-33)" and
>> > "the priority of the tasks waiting on the mutex (-35)".
>
> I agree, the proper solution is to change it back to -35. And we have a
> way to do that too. I think I can come up with a solution.

Steve

Thanks for looking into this.

It looks to me that real-time priority threads are not used in many
systems because we discovered already several issues, both in the
kernel and glibc while we are using Linux only recently.
Do you have a view on this?

Regards,
Ronny

>
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ronny
>> >
>> >
>> > 3408 static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
>> > 3409                                 const struct sched_attr *attr,
>> > 3410                                 bool user)
>> >
>> > 3596         /*
>> > 3597          * Special case for priority boosted tasks.
>> > 3598          *
>> > 3599          * If the new priority is lower or equal (user space view)
>> > 3600          * than the current (boosted) priority, we just store the new
>> > 3601          * normal parameters and do not touch the scheduler class and
>> > 3602          * the runqueue. This will be done when the task deboost
>> > 3603          * itself.
>> > 3604          */
>> > 3605         if (rt_mutex_check_prio(p, newprio)) {
>> > 3606                 __setscheduler_params(p, attr);
>> > 3607                 task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
>> > 3608                 return 0;
>> > 3609         }
>> > --
>> > 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/
>>
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-05-06  3:14     ` Ronny Meeus
@ 2015-05-06  3:23       ` Steven Rostedt
  2015-05-07 20:17         ` Ronny Meeus
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2015-05-06  3:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ronny Meeus; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Wed, 6 May 2015 05:14:18 +0200
Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for looking into this.
> 
> It looks to me that real-time priority threads are not used in many
> systems because we discovered already several issues, both in the
> kernel and glibc while we are using Linux only recently.
> Do you have a view on this?
> 

View on what?

Anyway, did you see the patch Thomas sent out?

Subject: [PATCH V2] sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()

It solves this current issue.

-- Steve

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-05-06  3:23       ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2015-05-07 20:17         ` Ronny Meeus
  2015-05-07 20:22           ` Steven Rostedt
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ronny Meeus @ 2015-05-07 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2015 05:14:18 +0200
> Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>
>> It looks to me that real-time priority threads are not used in many
>> systems because we discovered already several issues, both in the
>> kernel and glibc while we are using Linux only recently.
>> Do you have a view on this?
>>
>
> View on what?

Whether the real-time priority threads are used a lot.
I have the impression that there are severe issues in the Linux eco
system (Kernel+glibc) when it comes to real-time priority handling.

> Anyway, did you see the patch Thomas sent out?

I did not see, I will have a look right away.

>
> Subject: [PATCH V2] sched: Handle priority boosted tasks proper in setscheduler()
>
> It solves this current issue.
>
> -- Steve

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-05-07 20:17         ` Ronny Meeus
@ 2015-05-07 20:22           ` Steven Rostedt
  2015-05-07 20:25             ` Ronny Meeus
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2015-05-07 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ronny Meeus; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, 7 May 2015 22:17:48 +0200
Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com> wrote:

> > View on what?
> 
> Whether the real-time priority threads are used a lot.
> I have the impression that there are severe issues in the Linux eco
> system (Kernel+glibc) when it comes to real-time priority handling.
> 

It matters what you want from the thread. Real-time is about
determinism, not throughput. Most actions are about throughput, so it
would not surprise me that they do not make them RT.

-- Steve

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler
  2015-05-07 20:22           ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2015-05-07 20:25             ` Ronny Meeus
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ronny Meeus @ 2015-05-07 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Steven Rostedt; +Cc: Mike Galbraith, linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2015 22:17:48 +0200
> Ronny Meeus <ronny.meeus@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > View on what?
>>
>> Whether the real-time priority threads are used a lot.
>> I have the impression that there are severe issues in the Linux eco
>> system (Kernel+glibc) when it comes to real-time priority handling.
>>
>
> It matters what you want from the thread. Real-time is about
> determinism, not throughput. Most actions are about throughput, so it
> would not surprise me that they do not make them RT.
>

OK I understand.
I will try to test the patch of Thomas tomorrow.

Thanks Steve and Thomas for solving this issue.

> -- Steve

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2015-05-07 20:25 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-17 20:10 Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler Ronny Meeus
2015-04-30 16:34 ` Ronny Meeus
2015-04-30 17:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-04-30 17:23   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-30 17:27     ` Mike Galbraith
2015-04-30 17:29     ` Steven Rostedt
2015-04-30 17:28   ` Steven Rostedt
2015-05-06  3:14     ` Ronny Meeus
2015-05-06  3:23       ` Steven Rostedt
2015-05-07 20:17         ` Ronny Meeus
2015-05-07 20:22           ` Steven Rostedt
2015-05-07 20:25             ` Ronny Meeus

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).