![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 07:37, Alan Cox wrote: > Its more than a spinlock cleanup at that point. To do anything useful you have > to tackle both priority inversion and some kind of at least semi-formal > validation of the code itself. At the point it comes down to validating the > code I'd much rather validate rtlinux than the entire kernel The preemptible kernel plus the spinlock cleanup could really take us far. Having locked at a lot of the long-held locks in the kernel, I am confident at least reasonable progress could be made. Beyond that, yah, we need a better locking construct. Priority inversion could be solved with a priority-inheriting mutex, which we can tackle if and when we want to go that route. Not now. I want to lay the groundwork for a better kernel. The preempt-kernel patch gives real-world improvements, it provides a smoother user desktop experience -- just look at the positive feedback. Most importantly, however, it provides a framework for superior response with our standard kernel in its standard programming model. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||