Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269692AbUJVGbU (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:31:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269146AbUJVGYW (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:24:22 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:31961 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267388AbUJVGXh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:23:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:19:01 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Bill Huey Cc: 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: <20041022061901.GM32465@suse.de> References: <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> <20041021202422.GA24555@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20041021203350.GK32465@suse.de> <20041021203821.GA24628@nietzsche.lynx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041021203821.GA24628@nietzsche.lynx.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1740 Lines: 35 On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:33:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21 2004, Bill Huey wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Linux semaphores (being counted) have always been a fine fit for things > > like the loop use, where you get to down it 10 times because you have 10 > > items pending. I know this isn't the traditional mutex and that it > > doesn't protect data as such, but is was never abuse. It isn't overload. > > Doing it with a traditional mutex (I'm assuming this is what mutex_t is > > in Ingos tree) would be overload and a bad idea, indeed. > > Well, this is something that's got to be considered by the larger Linux > community and whether these conventions are to be kept or removed. It's > a larger issue than what can be address in Ingo's preemption patch, but > with inevitable need for something like this in the kernel (hard RT) > it's really unavoidable collision. IMO, it's got to go, which is a nasty > change. It has to go, why? Because your deadlock detection breaks? Doesn't seem a very strong reason to me at all, sorry. -- Jens Axboe - 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/