At 11:52 AM 5/22/2003 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >At 10:56 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, David Mosberger wrote: >> >>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> >> said: >> >> Mike> The page mentions persistent starvation. My own explorations >> Mike> of this issue indicate that the primary source is always >> Mike> selecting the highest priority queue. >> >>My working assumption is that the problem is a bug with the dynamic >>prioritization. The task receiving the signals calls sleep() after >>handling a signal and hence it's dynamic priority should end up higher >>than the priority of the task sending signals (since the sender never >>relinquishes the CPU voluntarily). >> >>However, I haven't actually had time to look at the relevant code, so >>I may be missing something. If you understand the issue better, >>please explain to me why this isn't a dynamic priority issue. > >You're right, it looks like a corner case. Out of curiosity, is someone hitting that with a real program? -Mike aside: if so, I suppose nano-ticks may be needed. rounding up gave us too many "nano-ticks", and was the first problem with irman, which brought round down into activate_task(). now, test-starve.c appears, and it turns out to be too many nano-ticks _missing_. (rounding up doesn't "fix" that one btw [too fast], but what I did to demonstrate the problem does re-break irman rather nicely:)Received on Thu May 22 09:22:05 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:14 EST