Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07

[Ingo Molnar]

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I like the idea of having the scheduler take care of it - it is a very 
> optimal coded queue-system after all. That will work on UP but not on 
> SMP. Having the unlock operation to set the mutex in a "partially 
> owned" state will work better. The only problem I see, relative to 
> Ingo's implementation, is that then the awoken task have to go in and 
> change the state of the mutex, i.e. it has to lock the wait_lock 
> again. Will the extra schedulings being the problem happen offen 
> enough in practise to have the extra overhead?

i think this should be covered by the 'unschedule/unwakeup' feature, 
mentioned in the latest mails.

	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/