lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)
On 3/29/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > On 03/28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > Well with my queued spinlocks, all that lockbreak stuff can just come out
> > > of the spin_lock, break_lock out of the spinlock structure, and
> > > need_lockbreak just becomes (lock->qhead - lock->qtail > 1).
> >
> > Q: queued spinlocks are not CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly,
>
> Why? Is CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly to anyone? :)

Until someone fixes all the places in the kernel where scheduling can
be held off for tens of milliseconds, CONFIG_PREEMPT will be an
absolute requirement for many applications like audio and gaming.

Many of these were fixed a while back during early -rt development but
at some point the process stalled as the remaining cases were too hard
to fix...

Lee
-
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: 2007-03-30 04:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans