Re: [patch] queued spinlocks (i386)

[Lee Revell]

On 3/29/07, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > On 03/28, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > Well with my queued spinlocks, all that lockbreak stuff can just come out
> > > of the spin_lock, break_lock out of the spinlock structure, and
> > > need_lockbreak just becomes (lock->qhead - lock->qtail > 1).
> >
> > Q: queued spinlocks are not CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly,
>
> Why? Is CONFIG_PREEMPT friendly to anyone? :)

Until someone fixes all the places in the kernel where scheduling can
be held off for tens of milliseconds, CONFIG_PREEMPT will be an
absolute requirement for many applications like audio and gaming.

Many of these were fixed a while back during early -rt development but
at some point the process stalled as the remaining cases were too hard
to fix...

Lee
-
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/