Re: FUSYN and RT

[john cooper]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 09:05 -0400, john cooper wrote:
>
> > Sven Dietrich wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > This one probably should be a raw_spinlock. 
> > > This lock is only held to protect access to the queues.
> > > Since the queues are already priority ordered, there is
> > > little benefit to ordering -the order of insertion-
> > > in case of contention on a queue, compared with the complexity.
> >
> > The choice of lock type should derive from both the calling
> > context and the length of time the lock is expected to be held.
>
>
> In this case, I don't think time matters for choice of lock. Time
> matters to keep it short since it does need the raw_spin_lock.  This
> lock is part of the whole locking scheme, and would be similar to not
> using raw_spin_locks in the implementation of rt_mutex.  Well, not
> exactly the same, but if we want the fusyn code to use the same code as
> rt_mutex for PI, then it will need to be a raw_spin_lock.

Ok, I was missing the context -- it does need to be a raw lock.
Is the scope of this lock limited to manipulating the list or
is it held to serialize other operations?

-john


--
john.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxx
-
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/