On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 22:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > Currently my fix is in yield to lower the priority of the task calling
> > > yield and raise it after the schedule. This is NOT a proper fix. It's
> > > just a hack so I can get by it and test other parts.
> >
> > yeah, yield() is a quite RT-incompatible concept, which could livelock
> > an upstream kernel just as much - if the task in question is SCHED_FIFO.
> > Almost all yield() uses should be eliminated from the upstream kernel,
> > step by step.
>
> Now the question is, who will fix it? Preferably the maintainers, but I
> don't know how much of a priority this is to them. I don't have the time
> now to look at this and understand enough about the code to be able to
> make a proper fix, and I'm sure you have other things to do too.
How about adding a
if(rt_task(current)) {
WARN_ON(1);
mutex_setprio(current, MAX_PRIO-1)
}
?
to find all calls to yields from rt-tasks. That will force the user (aka
the real-time developer) to either stop calling the subsystems still using
yield from his RT-tasks, or fix those subsystems.
Esben
>
> -- Steve
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
