Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:45:13 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:40:27AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote: > The current kernel mostly using traditional spinlocks doesn't have locking > complicated enough to warrant it. However, the -rt patch does create[s] a > circumstance where a fully preemptible [kernel] may sleep task with mutexes held create[ing] > [-and needs] [a need to] resolve priority inversions that results from it. That's of
With corrections...
Sorry, I meant a fully preemptive kernel has priority inversion as an inheritant property and needs to resolved using some kind of priority inheritance.
> course assuming that priority is something that needs to be strictly > obeyed in this variant of the kernel with consideration to priority > inheritance.
bill
- 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/
| |