Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | 12 Oct 2004 11:50:49 -0700 |
| |
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/
| |