Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-06-17 Thread Kirill Tkhai
Hi, Thomas, have you seen this version? Thanks, Kirill 30.05.2014, 00:52, "Kirill Tkhai" : > В Ср, 28/05/2014 в 22:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: >>  On Mon, 5 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: >>>  В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет:  Though exercising that code path as mu

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-29 Thread Kirill Tkhai
В Ср, 28/05/2014 в 22:26 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: > On Mon, 5 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: > > > Though exercising that code path as much as we can is not a bad thing > > > either. So I'd like to see that made compile time conditional

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-28 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: > > Though exercising that code path as much as we can is not a bad thing > > either. So I'd like to see that made compile time conditional on one > > of the lock testing CONFIG items. > > +#ifndef CO

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-05 Thread Kirill Tkhai
В Сб, 03/05/2014 в 20:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner пишет: > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege > > of one fair task over the other. In this case priority > > boosting looks excess. > > > > On RT patch with enabled PREEMPT_RT_FULL I see a l

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-04 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sun, 4 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 08:54:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege > > > of one fair task over the other. In this case priority > > > boosting looks exces

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-04 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 08:54:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege > > of one fair task over the other. In this case priority > > boosting looks excess. > > > > On RT patch with enabled PREEMPT_RT_FULL

Re: [RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-03 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege > of one fair task over the other. In this case priority > boosting looks excess. > > On RT patch with enabled PREEMPT_RT_FULL I see a lot of > rt_mutex_setprio() actions like > > 120 -> 118 >

[RFC] rtmutex: Do not boost fair tasks each other

2014-05-01 Thread Kirill Tkhai
Higher priority does not provide exclusive privilege of one fair task over the other. In this case priority boosting looks excess. On RT patch with enabled PREEMPT_RT_FULL I see a lot of rt_mutex_setprio() actions like 120 -> 118 118 -> 120 They harm RT tasks. RT patch has lazy