On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:34:02 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On 2023-01-20 17:37:11 [+0800], Hillf Danton wrote: > > > > I am fine with either 4ms or 40ms, or a second. > > > > Given the cure, does it still work when reader bias for RT tasks is allowed? > No. > > > If not, why keep starving waiters after they pay the 40ms price? > > That kind of starvation will also happen if you have only spinlock_t > locks and you say 3 RT tasks that acquire the lock back to back. And a > few SCHED_OTHER tasks. Those 3 will be always be in front of the queue > (as they skip the line) and the following SCHED_OTHER tasks will starve > and never get the lock. Given priority, what sense could be made by keeping RT task starved?
