Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759085AbXHAP5k (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:57:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752700AbXHAP5a (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:57:30 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:27196 "EHLO gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754564AbXHAP53 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:57:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure From: Daniel Walker To: Gregory Haskins Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1185981585.9513.119.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> References: <20070801002407.4973.54778.stgit@novell1.haskins.net> <1185940340.2636.97.camel@imap.mvista.com> <1185969554.9513.106.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> <1185981025.2636.102.camel@imap.mvista.com> <1185981585.9513.119.camel@ghaskins-t60p.haskins.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:55:52 -0700 Message-Id: <1185983752.2636.116.camel@imap.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-1.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1641 Lines: 42 On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:19 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 08:10 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > rt_mutex_setprio() is just a function. It was also designed specifically > > for PI , so it seems fairly sane to use it in other PI type > > situations .. > > > > Yes. It is designed for PI and I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use > the logic itself. What I was suggesting is that dealing with an API > that has "rt_mutex" in it for something that has nothing to do with > rt_mutexes is, well... It's fine for now .. One step at a time.. > All I was suggesting is that we break out the PI subsystem from rt_mutex > code so its an independent PI API and have the rt_mutex subsystem become > a user. That's a far cleaner way to do it, IMHO. The workqueues don't really need full blown transitive PI. So without that your back to the rt_mutex_setprio function .. Which could be renamed .. Here was my attempt years ago , http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/31/288 Looking back on it, I'm not sure what users I was planning to implement along with it .. I'm sure I was thinking "There must be other blocking primitives that could use this.." , but now I don't think there are .. Everything pretty much runs through the rt mutex.. workqueues are just "dancing" , or changing priorities up/down which is really only the lowest level of what the rt-mutex does. Daniel - 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/