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    [W:0.026 / U:30.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site