Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-rc4-mm1-U8

[hui]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:38:21PM -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:33:50PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 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.

But this is a non-fatal case. I'll see if I can change this logic to not
completely die when this case is detected.

bill

-
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/