Re: Real-Time Preemption and UML?

[Esben Nielsen]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jeff Dike wrote:

> mingo@xxxxxxx said:
> > Jeff, any objections against adding this change to UML at some point?
> 
> No, not at all.  I just need to understand what CONFIG_PREEMPT requires of
> UML.

Ingo can probably tell you in much more detail. My problem when I tried to
compile with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT (not CONFIG_PREEMPT!) was that
__SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER didn't exist since the architecture specific
semaphore.h is not included in that configuration. The reason again is
that locking (not completions) is changed a lot under CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT to
introduce muteces instead of raw spinlocks and priority inheritance to
make these lockings behave deterministicly.

> 
> >From a quick read of Documentation/preempt-locking.txt, this looks like it's
> implementing Rule #3 (unlock by the same task that locked), which looks fine.
>

Now I don't really know who I am responding to. But both up()s now changed
to complete()s are in something looking very much like an interrupt
handler. But again, as I said, I didn't analyze the code in detail, I just
made it compile and checked that it worked in bare 2.6.11-rc2 UML  - which
I am not too sure how to set up and use to begin with!
 
> 				Jeff
> 

Esben


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/