Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

[hui]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 04:40:27AM -0800, Bill Huey wrote:
> The current kernel mostly using traditional spinlocks doesn't have locking
> complicated enough to warrant it. However, the -rt patch does create[s] a
> circumstance where a fully preemptible [kernel] may sleep task with mutexes held create[ing]
> [-and needs] [a need to] resolve priority inversions that results from it. That's of

With corrections...

Sorry, I meant a fully preemptive kernel has priority inversion as an
inheritant property and needs to resolved using some kind of priority
inheritance.

> course assuming that priority is something that needs to be strictly
> obeyed in this variant of the kernel with consideration to priority
> inheritance.

bill

-
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/