lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: FUSYN and RT
    From
    Date
    On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 09:05 -0400, john cooper wrote:
    > Sven Dietrich wrote:
    [...]
    > > This one probably should be a raw_spinlock.
    > > This lock is only held to protect access to the queues.
    > > Since the queues are already priority ordered, there is
    > > little benefit to ordering -the order of insertion-
    > > in case of contention on a queue, compared with the complexity.
    >
    > The choice of lock type should derive from both the calling
    > context and the length of time the lock is expected to be held.
    >

    In this case, I don't think time matters for choice of lock. Time
    matters to keep it short since it does need the raw_spin_lock. This
    lock is part of the whole locking scheme, and would be similar to not
    using raw_spin_locks in the implementation of rt_mutex. Well, not
    exactly the same, but if we want the fusyn code to use the same code as
    rt_mutex for PI, then it will need to be a raw_spin_lock.

    -- Steve


    -
    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: 2005-04-16 16:27    [W:0.022 / U:215.924 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site