Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267527AbUJLSvS (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:51:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267518AbUJLSvS (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:51:18 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:25842 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267561AbUJLSvF (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:51:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Linux 2.6 Real Time Kernel From: Daniel Walker Reply-To: dwalker@mvista.com To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , sdietrich@mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, abatyrshin@ru.mvista.com, amakarov@ru.mvista.com, emints@ru.mvista.com, ext-rt-dev@mvista.com, hzhang@ch.mvista.com, yyang@ch.mvista.com In-Reply-To: <20041011204959.GB16366@elte.hu> References: <41677E4D.1030403@mvista.com> <20041010084633.GA13391@elte.hu> <1097437314.17309.136.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20041010142000.667ec673.akpm@osdl.org> <20041010215906.GA19497@elte.hu> <1097517191.28173.1.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <20041011204959.GB16366@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MontaVista Message-Id: <1097607049.9548.108.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 12 Oct 2004 11:50:49 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1415 Lines: 30 On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 13:49, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/