Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 09:09:14 -0400 (EDT) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Document futex PI design |
| |
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:59:49AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > +lock - In this document from now on, the term lock and spin lock will > > + be synonymous. These are locks that are used for SMP as well > > + as turning off preemption to protect areas of code on SMP machines. > Should the last SMP be UP? >
Grmb, I should fix that definition.
No, it should still be SMP but the definition is awkward. I need to state that really, when I refer to "lock" I mean that I'm talking about raw spin locks. So it mainly protects SMP code, but also UP by disabling preemption. So I'm talking about a normal spin_lock.
I wrote this document generically so that it works for both the vanilla kernel when talking about the PI of futexes, as well as when talking about the -rt patch with its kernel mutexes. In the -rt patch, spin locks turn into mutexes, so I was stumbling over not mentioning spin_locks per se, but was trying to explain them as just spinning locks.
Anyway, I should rewrite that definition.
Thanks for the feedback,
-- Steve
- 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/
| |