Brian Hurt wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Brian Hurt wrote:
>>> Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
> But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
>
> That second paper is interesting in that it says that STM solves the
> priority inversi
Ron Mayer wrote:
Brian Hurt wrote:
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
they're evil. But, especially given prior
Brian Hurt wrote:
> Mark Lewis wrote:
>> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
>>
>>> I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
>>> programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
>>> they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance,
Mark Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
...
I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
situation where
On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Brian Hurt wrote:
...
> I have the same question. I've done some embedded real-time
> programming, so my innate reaction to priority inversions is that
> they're evil. But, especially given priority inheritance, is there any
> situation where priority inversi
Ron Mayer wrote:
Before asking them to remove it, are we sure priority inversion
is really a problem?
I thought this paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf
did a pretty good job at studying priority inversion on RDBMs's
including PostgreSQL on various workloads (TCP-W and TCP-C) and
fo
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Short summary:
>> * Papers studying priority inversion issues with
>> databases including PosgreSQL and realistic workloads
>> conclude setpriority() helps even in the presence of
>> priority inversion issues for TCP-C and TCP-W like
>> w
Ron Mayer wrote:
Short summary:
* Papers studying priority inversion issues with
databases including PosgreSQL and realistic workloads
conclude setpriority() helps even in the presence of
priority inversion issues for TCP-C and TCP-W like
workloads.
* Avoiding priority inversi
Before asking them to remove it, are we sure priority inversion
is really a problem?
I thought this paper: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf
did a pretty good job at studying priority inversion on RDBMs's
including PostgreSQL on various workloads (TCP-W and TCP-C) and
found that the benefit
Short summary:
* Papers studying priority inversion issues with
databases including PosgreSQL and realistic workloads
conclude setpriority() helps even in the presence of
priority inversion issues for TCP-C and TCP-W like
workloads.
* Avoiding priority inversion with priority in
10 matches
Mail list logo
