[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: FUSYN and RT
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-16 16:27    [W:0.020 / U:144.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site