How can policies implemented inWindows XP lead to priority inversion? How does Windows XP handle priority inversion? In what ways is this a good policy?What are its drawbacks?

What will be an ideal response?

Windows XP does not boost the priority of a thread holding a resource for which a
higher-priority thread is waiting.This can lead to priority inversion in which a thread of priority
greater than the lower-priority thread, but less than the higher-priority thread, monopolizes
the processor.Windows XP handles this by periodically boosting the priority of threads
that have not executed for a while. This policy reduces most priority-inversion problems.
However, if the lower-priority thread does not finish using the resource before its quantum
ends, its priority is returned to its original level.The lower-priority thread might have to wait
to be boosted again to execute. This can lead to a higher-priority thread, possibly a real-time
thread, waiting for a long period of time because of a medium-priority dynamic thread.