Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 13:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> what do you think about the PREEMPT_REALTIME stuff in -T4? Ideally, if
> you agree with the generic approach, the next step would be to add your
> priority inheritance handling code to Linux semaphores and
> rw-semaphores. The sched.c bits for that looked pretty straightforward.
> The list walking is a bit ugly but probably unavoidable - the only other
> option would be 100 priority queues per semaphore -> yuck.


I think patch size is an issue, but I also think that , eventually, we
should change all spin_lock calls that actually lock a mutex to be more
distinct so it's obvious what is going on. Sven and I both agree that
this should be addressed. Is this a non-issue for you? What does the
community want? I don't find your code or ours acceptable in it's
current form , due to this issue.

With the addition of PREEMPT_REALTIME it looks like you more than
doubled the size of voluntary preempt. I really feel that it should
remain as two distinct patches. They are dependent , but the scope of
the changes are too vast to lump it all together. 

Daniel Walker

-
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/