lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel
From
Date
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 13:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> what do you think about the PREEMPT_REALTIME stuff in -T4? Ideally, if
> you agree with the generic approach, the next step would be to add your
> priority inheritance handling code to Linux semaphores and
> rw-semaphores. The sched.c bits for that looked pretty straightforward.
> The list walking is a bit ugly but probably unavoidable - the only other
> option would be 100 priority queues per semaphore -> yuck.


I think patch size is an issue, but I also think that , eventually, we
should change all spin_lock calls that actually lock a mutex to be more
distinct so it's obvious what is going on. Sven and I both agree that
this should be addressed. Is this a non-issue for you? What does the
community want? I don't find your code or ours acceptable in it's
current form , due to this issue.

With the addition of PREEMPT_REALTIME it looks like you more than
doubled the size of voluntary preempt. I really feel that it should
remain as two distinct patches. They are dependent , but the scope of
the changes are too vast to lump it all together.

Daniel Walker

-
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 14:06    [W:2.021 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site