lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Abstracted Priority Inheritance for RT
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 22:27 +0200, Esben Nielsen wrote:
>
> > But right now the following ideas spring to my mind:
> > If it is to solve the problem of having a callback wrap every use
> > in macroes and use the TYPE_EQUAL() to expclicit call the right function.
> > Only if the explicit type is unknown in the macro use the callback. That
> > should optimize stuff a little bit.. Just a wild idea.
>
> It's a little hard to do that. It's basically the situation you have
> below, there is no way to know what "waiter" is at compile time, so you
> can't really do the TYPE_EQUAL() trick on "get_next_waiter" .
>
> I have "waiter->waiter_changed_prio()" which results in the same
> problem. There is no way to know what "type" waiter is at compile
> time ..
>
>
> > If it is explicitly for PI you can do a thing like
> > waiter->get_next_waiter();
> > to resolve the chain of waiters. Then you can have the PI algotithm work
> > iteratively without knowing the explicit kind of lock involved.
>
> This is essentially what I have now, but it's also what I'm unhappy
> with. The only reason that I don't like this method is that it's a
> little slow .. I don't mind keeping it as long as no better way presents
> itself.
>
> Daniel
>
C++ templates would have helped a lot... But we only have the low
tech version: macroes.

Esben

-
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: 2005-06-03 11:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans