Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jun 2005 05:57:55 -0700 (PDT) | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Abstracted Priority Inheritance for RT |
| |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'd rather not slow things down by callbacks and other abstraction > before seeing how things want to integrate in fact. Do we really need > the callbacks?
I think it would be hard to do without a way to signal when a waiter changes priorties. Since other structures could handle it differently.
Another problem is that there needs to be a clear way to know which structure owns the rt_mutex_waiter . Something in there needs to be unique. It can't be assumed anymore that everything is an rt_mutex.
The lock owner could be put into the rt_mutex_waiter structure. Which would make the structure bigger, but it's usually stack space. This would also create some duplicate data since every waiter would need to hold the owners task_struct pointer.
Daniel
- 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/
| |