Hi Waiman, On 08/10/24 14:30, Waiman Long wrote: > On 10/8/24 11:22 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: ... > > Now, of course by making the latency sensitive application tasks use a > > higher priority than anything on housekeeping CPUs we could avoid the > > issue, but the fact that an implicit in-kernel link between otherwise > > unrelated tasks might cause priority inversion is probably not ideal? > > Thus this email. > > > > Does this report make any sense? If it does, has this issue ever been > > reported and possibly discussed? I guess it’s kind of a corner case, but > > I wonder if anybody has suggestions already on how to possibly try to > > tackle it from a kernel perspective. > > Just a question. Is the low latency application using PI futex or the normal > wait-wake futex? We could use separate set of hash buckets for these > distinct futex types. AFAIK it uses normal futexes (or a mix at best). Also I believe it relies on libraries, so somewhat difficult to tell for certain. Thanks, Juri