Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> IMO the number of raw_spinlocks should be lower, I said teens before. 
> 
> Theoretically, it should only need to be around hardware registers and
> some memory maps and cache code, plus interrupt controller and other
> SMP-contended hardware.

yeah, fully agreed. Right now the 90 locks i have means roughly 20% of
all locking still happens as raw spinlocks.

But, there is a 'correctness' _minimum_ set of spinlocks that _must_ be
raw spinlocks - this i tried to map in the -T4 patch. The patch does run
on SMP systems for example. (it was developed as an SMP kernel - in fact
i never compiled it as UP :-|.) If code has per-CPU or preemption
assumptions then there is no choice but to make it a raw spinlock, until
those assumptions are fixed.

> There are some concurrency issues in kernel threads, and I think there
> is a lot of work here.  The abstraction for LOCK_OPS is a good
> alternative, but like the spin_undefs, its difficult to tell in the
> code whether you are dealing with a mutex or a spinlock. 

what do you mean by 'it's difficult to tell'? In -T4 you do the choice
of type in the data structure and the API adapts automatically. If the
type is raw_spinlock_t then a spin_lock() is turned into a
_raw_spin_lock(). If the type is spinlock_t then the spin_lock() is
redirected to mutex_lock(). It's all transparently done and always
correct.

> There are a whole lot of caveats and race conditions that have not yet
> been unearthed by the brief LKML testing. [...]

actually, have you tried your patchset on an SMP box? As far as i can
see the locking in it ignores SMP issues _completely_, which makes the
choice of locks much less useful.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/