[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 2.6.24-rc2 1/3] generic gpio -- gpio_chip support
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 19:37, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Upstream, all spinlocks prevent preemption.
> I chose my wording carefully though. A preemption point is
> more than just a small region where preemption isn't allowed.
> It's one of those where preemption is *INVITED* ...

With CONFIG_PREEMPT upstream, that's exactly the same (unless
you're considering preempt breaking points, which you don't
seem t obe).

> Now, in the RT case, I believe the rationale for inviting
> preemption when dropping a lock is largely related to the
> way priority inversion is handled. When lock contention can
> block higher priority activities, dropping the lock must
> be able to trigger the relevant activity switch.

There is no specific inviting of preemption. The locks are
preemptible -- they can be preempted even while being *held*

> ... and the raw spinlocks don't support that machinery,
> while "normal" spinlocks become inversion-aware mutexes.
> > But these ones
> > are raw locks rather than normal locks probably because that
> > they are trivially an innermost and correct lock.
> As in the $SUBJECT case, I'd say.
> Although another point is related to "trivial": the data
> is being protected through an operation too trivial to be
> worth paying for any of that priority logic.

A driver shouldn't get to decide that, IMO. And if there is
some policy in the -rt tree allowing these decisions, then
it's exactly the kind of thing we don't want upsream.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-14 10:15    [W:0.333 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site