Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 May 2005 08:12:18 -0700 (PDT) | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc4-V0.7.47-06 |
| |
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> So the very first node will be skipped, iteration will be out of order, > and you will have the plist's *head* as a last element (which is not > struct rt_mutex_waiter, of course).
True, but the first node is the list head which must be static, It's not an actual list member.
> > unsigned plist_empty(const struct plist *plist) > > { > > - return list_empty (&plist->dp_node); > > + return list_empty(&plist->dp_node) && list_empty(&plist->sp_node); > > } > > It's enough to check list_empty(&plist->sp_node) only.
True.
> new_sp_head: > itr_pl2 = container_of(itr_pl->dp_node.prev, struct plist, dp_node); > list_add(&pl->sp_node, &itr_pl2->sp_node); > > Why? Just list_add_tail(&pl->sp_node, itr_pl->sp_node), you don't > need itr_pl2 at all.
Wouldn't work . What if itr_pl has 15 elements at it's priority?
> Daniel, if you accepted all-nodes-tied-via-sp_node idea, could you > also look at the code I've suggested. I think it is much simpler > and understandable.
I will/have. The sp_node all connect idea came from your stuff.
> Personally, I think it is better to have pl_head for plist's head, > and pl_node for nodes. It is pointless to store ->prio in the plist's > head, it can be found in plist_first()->prio. This way we can trim > the size of rt_mutex to 32 bytes, and it is good for typechecking.
I like that idea, I just haven't done it yet.
Daniel
- 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/
| |