From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751818AbbEGUSM (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 16:18:12 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]:35837 "EHLO mail-qk0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751294AbbEGUSJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 16:18:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150505232301.19f99734@grimm.local.home> References: <1430413502.3180.157.camel@gmail.com> <20150430132840.6d550b64@gandalf.local.home> <20150505232301.19f99734@grimm.local.home> From: Ronny Meeus Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 22:17:48 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Issue in PI boosting code in __sched_setscheduler To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 6 May 2015 05:14:18 +0200 > Ronny Meeus 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