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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans