lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk> wrote:

> I like the idea of having the scheduler take care of it - it is a very
> optimal coded queue-system after all. That will work on UP but not on
> SMP. Having the unlock operation to set the mutex in a "partially
> owned" state will work better. The only problem I see, relative to
> Ingo's implementation, is that then the awoken task have to go in and
> change the state of the mutex, i.e. it has to lock the wait_lock
> again. Will the extra schedulings being the problem happen offen
> enough in practise to have the extra overhead?

i think this should be covered by the 'unschedule/unwakeup' feature,
mentioned in the latest mails.

Ingo
-
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: 2005-04-06 13:30    [W:0.124 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site