From: "Christian Henz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 :-)
They are meant for realtime use and are part of the POSIX realtime extensions, so I disagree with Paul. That's not uncommon, though we have agreed on some things in the past. :) --ms
