Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270839AbUJUUbt (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:31:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270830AbUJUU2L (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:28:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.Lynuxworks.com ([207.21.185.24]:15635 "EHLO smtp.lynuxworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270843AbUJUUYv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:24:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:24:22 -0700 To: Jens Axboe Cc: Bill Huey , Thomas Gleixner , Rui Nuno Capela , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 Message-ID: <20041021202422.GA24555@nietzsche.lynx.com> References: <20041019124605.GA28896@elte.hu> <20041019180059.GA23113@elte.hu> <20041020094508.GA29080@elte.hu> <30690.195.245.190.93.1098349976.squirrel@195.245.190.93> <1098350190.26758.24.camel@thomas> <20041021095344.GA10531@suse.de> <1098352441.26758.30.camel@thomas> <20041021101103.GC10531@suse.de> <20041021195842.GA23864@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20041021201443.GF32465@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021201443.GF32465@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Bill Huey (hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1450 Lines: 29 On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:14:43PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > > A lot of things are perfectly "valid" in the Linux kernel regarding > > stuff like that are a bit irregular. But the preemption work about > > to stress these things in ways that was never designed to which is > > why these patches are needed. Having a clear use of various locking > > conventions is key to getting this system to behave in a predictable > > manner. Quite simply, Linux was never targetted to do this and the > > sloppiness is showing so it's got to be removed. > > I have to disagree, I don't think the above use is either convoluted or > sloppy in any way. Now that we have the completion structure, certain > things are surely better implemented as such. But the old use is > perfectly valid and logical, imho. You use a semaphore to protect data, a completion isn't protecting data but preserving a certain kind of wait ordering in the code. The possibility of overloading the current mutex_t for PI makes for a conceptual mismatch when used in this case since having a kind of priority for completions is a bit odd. It's better to flat out use a completion instead, IMO. bill - 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/