Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:06:41 -0400 | | From | "Lee Revell" <> | | Subject | Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386) |
| |
On 3/29/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 03/28, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > > Well with my queued spinlocks, all that lockbreak stuff can just come out > > > of the spin_lock, break_lock out of the spinlock structure, and > > > need_lockbreak just becomes (lock->qhead - lock->qtail > 1). > > > > Q: queued spinlocks are not CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly, > > Why? Is CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly to anyone? :)
Until someone fixes all the places in the kernel where scheduling can be held off for tens of milliseconds, CONFIG_PREEMPT will be an absolute requirement for many applications like audio and gaming.
Many of these were fixed a while back during early -rt development but at some point the process stalled as the remaining cases were too hard to fix...
Lee - 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/
|  |