Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX

[Charles Cui <charles.cui1984%gmail.com@localhost>]

Any comments on the tests?

2016-06-21 14:36 GMT-07:00 Charles Cui <charles.cui1984%gmail.com@localhost>:

> Hi Christos,
>
>   Some updates on the tests of priority protect.
> You need to apply my new patch here,
> https://github.com/ycui1984/posixtestsuite/blob/master/patches/PRIOPROTECT_AND_GETCLOCK/0005-extend-sched_param.patch
>
> and run the test,
>
> https://github.com/ycui1984/posixtestsuite/blob/master/patches/PRIOPROTECT_AND_GETCLOCK/0006-unit-tests-for-priority-protect.patch
> You can see thread who is blocked on mutex has higher protect priority,
> which is considered by kernel when scheduling.
>
> Thanks, Charles
>
> 2016-06-20 18:58 GMT-07:00 Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>:
>
>> On Jun 20,  1:07pm, charles.cui1984%gmail.com@localhost (Charles Cui) wrote:
>> -- Subject: Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX
>>
>> | I have write a draft of the benchmark, but have not verified
>> successfully
>> | on the patched system.
>> | The idea is to
>> | 1. create a mutexattr data structure and set pthread priority protect
>> | protocol.
>> | 2. set the real time scheduling policy.
>> | 3. use the mutexattr to init a mutex.
>> | 4. create 2 threads to contend for the mutex
>> | 5. verify that the thread who is waiting for the mutex is executed on a
>> | higher priority(ceiling priority of mutex)
>> | I will notify you the new results once I have made progress.
>> |
>> | I will send you the summary and plan in a separate email later.
>>
>> Sounds like a good plan, thanks!
>>
>> christos
>>
>
>