lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8
On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:33:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote:
> > > You use a semaphore to protect data, a completion isn't protecting data
> > > but preserving a certain kind of wait ordering in the code. The
> > > possibility of overloading the current mutex_t for PI makes for a conceptual
> > > mismatch when used in this case since having a kind of priority for
> > > completions is a bit odd. It's better to flat out use a completion
> > > instead, IMO.
> >
> > Linux semaphores (being counted) have always been a fine fit for things
> > like the loop use, where you get to down it 10 times because you have 10
> > items pending. I know this isn't the traditional mutex and that it
> > doesn't protect data as such, but is was never abuse. It isn't overload.
> > Doing it with a traditional mutex (I'm assuming this is what mutex_t is
> > in Ingos tree) would be overload and a bad idea, indeed.
>
> Well, this is something that's got to be considered by the larger Linux
> community and whether these conventions are to be kept or removed. It's
> a larger issue than what can be address in Ingo's preemption patch, but
> with inevitable need for something like this in the kernel (hard RT)
> it's really unavoidable collision. IMO, it's got to go, which is a nasty
> change.

It has to go, why? Because your deadlock detection breaks? Doesn't seem
a very strong reason to me at all, sorry.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans