[zeromq-dev] is priority inversion a problem?

[Wolfgang Richter]

I wouldn't mind working with Roger to make a minimal example triggering
this.

Roger - did you have a programming language in mind?  I usually work in C
with ZeroMQ or Python.

--
Wolf

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, Pieter Hintjens wrote:

> Do you have a reproducible case for this?
>
> -Pieter
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Roger Dannenberg <rbd at cs.cmu.edu<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Does ZeroMQ support communication among fixed priority threads using
> > inproc transport? It looks to me like ZeroMQ uses malloc to
> > allocate/free messages, which implies a shared lock on a shared heap. If
> > a low priority thread gets the lock and a medium priority thread
> > preempts it, can't that block a high priority thread indefinitely? I
> > believe OS X and Windows do not have locks with priority ceiling or
> > priority inheritance protocols, and it appears that Linux offers
> > priority inheritance but does not use it in malloc/free as implemented
> > in glibc, so it seems that priority inversion is (still) a potential
> > problem. Does ZeroMQ offer a solution?
> >      -Roger Dannenberg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > zeromq-dev mailing list
> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org <javascript:;>
> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20121114/5fbeeefd/attachment.htm>