On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:55:48AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > >Thus, the fact that Linux does not support protocols to prevent priority > >inversion (please correct me if I am wrong) kind of suggests that supporting > >realtime applications is not considered very important. > > we went through this (you and i in particular) right here on LAD a > year or so ago. while i might agree with you about the priority given > to RT-ish apps, my recollection of the end of that discussion is that > priority inheritance is neither necessary nor sufficient to allow > adequate RT performance. priority inversion generally can be factored > out through application redesign, and the protocols i've seen to > address it are not useful for RT purposes - they just help deadlock. >
Hmm, I've just recently learned about the Priority Ceiling Protocol, an extension to Priority Inversion Protocol, which explicitly prevents deadlocks. And I've learned about both in a RTOS course, so I'm a little surprised by your statement about them not being useful for RT purposes :-) cheers, Christian -- "Somewhere in Texas... a village is missing its idiot."
