| Date | Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:19:01 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 |
| |
On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:33:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > > > You use a semaphore to protect data, a completion isn't protecting data > > > but preserving a certain kind of wait ordering in the code. The > > > possibility of overloading the current mutex_t for PI makes for a conceptual > > > mismatch when used in this case since having a kind of priority for > > > completions is a bit odd. It's better to flat out use a completion > > > instead, IMO. > > > > Linux semaphores (being counted) have always been a fine fit for things > > like the loop use, where you get to down it 10 times because you have 10 > > items pending. I know this isn't the traditional mutex and that it > > doesn't protect data as such, but is was never abuse. It isn't overload. > > Doing it with a traditional mutex (I'm assuming this is what mutex_t is > > in Ingos tree) would be overload and a bad idea, indeed. > > Well, this is something that's got to be considered by the larger Linux > community and whether these conventions are to be kept or removed. It's > a larger issue than what can be address in Ingo's preemption patch, but > with inevitable need for something like this in the kernel (hard RT) > it's really unavoidable collision. IMO, it's got to go, which is a nasty > change.
It has to go, why? Because your deadlock detection breaks? Doesn't seem a very strong reason to me at all, sorry.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
|