Re: RT patch acceptance

[john cooper]

Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 16:38 -0400, john cooper wrote:
> > Spin if the lock is contended and the owner is active
> > on a cpu under the assumption the lock owner's average
> > hold time is less than that of a context switch.  There
> > are restrictions as once a path holds an adaptive
> > mutex as a spin lock it cannot acquire another adaptive
> > mutex as a blocking lock.
>
> It might be simpler to get things working with a basic implementation
> first, (status quo), and then look into adding something like this. 

I wasn't suggesting this is the time to consider doing so,
but rather pointing it out as an available optimization.

> I don't see how this approach decreases the complexity of the task at
> hand, especially not in regards to concurrency.

It increases the efficiency of the mutex as we don't incur
context switches (in general) unless necessary.  Concurrency
isn't fundamentally affected.

-john


--
john.cooper@xxxxxxxxxxx
-
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/