This is the mail archive of the
libc-help@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: malloc/free and priority inheritance?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh dot poyarekar at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Stanislav Meduna <stano at meduna dot org>, libc-help <libc-help at sourceware dot org>, "linux-rt-users at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-rt-users at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:24:02 -0400
- Subject: Re: malloc/free and priority inheritance?
- References: <515B647C dot 3080505 at meduna dot org> <515D7943 dot 5000401 at meduna dot org> <515D808C dot 8090808 at meduna dot org> <CAAHN_R1zLdHqpC4JGxjJtADRWGA0hC=G2C3=0Z21KTKk5HJNtg at mail dot gmail dot com> <515D93F8 dot 5050006 at redhat dot com> <CAAHN_R2zdvYwQL_Md8C=+O9w3tc2y+XR5tofv3FEe6CjcOubAQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 04/04/2013 11:32 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 4 April 2013 20:23, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> ... and ARM uses the generic C code.
>>
>> My comments in BZ#12114 still remain. Why can't we make malloc/free
>> use PI locks? We need not convert lll_lock, but just make malloc-machine.h
>> use a PI-aware lock?
>
> The trouble (as always) is to decide on when to use PI-aware locks.
> Do we do that by default or do we have (*chuckle*) an environment
> variable to override the default locks? Maybe this discussion is more
> suitable for libc-alpha though, since we can hopefully get all
> maintainers to chime in there.
The number of tunables just keeps growing doesn't it?
Added this to my list of tunables in the WIP document I'm writing:
sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/TuningLibraryRuntimeBehavior
Cheers,
Carlos.