Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270684AbUJVEX5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:23:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270899AbUJVEUY (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:20:24 -0400 Received: from mail.timesys.com ([65.117.135.102]:44703 "EHLO exchange.timesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270930AbUJUUU0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:26 -0400 Message-ID: <41781984.5090602@timesys.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:18:12 -0400 From: john cooper User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood CC: "Eugeny S. Mints" , Esben Nielsen , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Jens Axboe , Rui Nuno Capela , LKML , Lee Revell , mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com, "K.R. Foley" , Bill Huey , Adam Heath , Florian Schmidt , Michal Schmidt , Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano , john cooper Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8 References: <4177CD3C.9020201@timesys.com> <4177DA11.4090902@ru.mvista.com> <4177E89A.1090100@timesys.com> <20041021173302.GA26318@yoda.timesys> <4177FB4F.9030202@timesys.com> <20041021184742.GB26530@yoda.timesys> In-Reply-To: <20041021184742.GB26530@yoda.timesys> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2004 20:15:22.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1889C60:01C4B7AA] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1402 Lines: 41 Scott Wood wrote: >On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:09:19PM -0400, john cooper wrote: > >>That's true for the case where the current priority is >>somewhere else handy (likely) and we don't need to traverse >>the list for other reasons such as allowing/disallowing >>recursive acquisition of a mutex by a given task. >> > >How would maintaining priority order make it faster to check for >recursive usage? > It wouldn't. My point was an exhaustive traversal may be needed for other reasons with an insertion sort being near free. Yet considering the cost to maintain these lists in priority order with multiple spinlock acquisition sequences due to how the aggregate data structure must be traversed/ordered, I haven't yet convinced myself either way. >On uniprocessor, one may wish to turn rwlocks into recursive non-rw >mutexes, where recursion checking would use a single owner field. > It isn't obvious to me how this would address the case of a task holding a reader lock on mx-A then blocking on mx-B. Another task attempting to acquire a reader lock on mx-A would block rather than immediately acquiring the lock. -john -- john.cooper@timesys.com - 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/