Re: [RFC] RT-patch update to remove the global pi_lock

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > One downside would be an increase in mutex structure size though.
> 
> If I do need to add an additional lock to the mutex, I would abstract 
> it all, so that the old global pi_lock can be used if configured.  
> This way, a UP or a low memory 2x SMP machine can still use the old 
> method, but when it needs to grow, switch over to the new non-global 
> pi_locking method.  But, maybe I can still get away with just using 
> the wait_lock and not add any more overhead to the size of the mutex.

We want to reduce configurability, not increase it. Having something 
like a selectable _core design property_ leads to madness and hard to 
maintain code very quickly.

also, we already have a per-lock spinlock. Why not use that?

	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/