lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Abstracted Priority Inheritance for RT


On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i'd rather not slow things down by callbacks and other abstraction
> before seeing how things want to integrate in fact. Do we really need
> the callbacks?

I think it would be hard to do without a way to signal when a waiter
changes priorties. Since other structures could handle it differently.

Another problem is that there needs to be a clear way to know which
structure owns the rt_mutex_waiter . Something in there needs to be
unique. It can't be assumed anymore that everything is an rt_mutex.

The lock owner could be put into the rt_mutex_waiter structure. Which
would make the structure bigger, but it's usually stack space. This would
also create some duplicate data since every waiter would need to hold the
owners task_struct pointer.


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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-01 15:01    [W:0.038 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site