Re: [Fwd: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.9-mm1-V0.4]

[Ingo Molnar]

* Bill Huey <bhuey@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The lock chains aren't that deep in Linux so the algorithmic
> complexity is not going to hit some crazy polynomial time unless
> there's some seriously nasty contention at a certain point in the
> kernel (billions of readers for example against a write aquire). But
> when we start to see things like that under pressure is when we need
> to start shortening the need for that/those lock(s) for that/those
> critical section(s) in question.

also note that in the -U series i removed the true 'read' logic from
semaphores. What we have now are single writers only, plus readers
emulated as a writer plus the ability to self-recurse. ('writers' are
not allowed to self-recurse.) This is quite close to the semantic needs
of Linux rwlocks and rwsems and it simplified both locking, deadlock
detection and PI quite significantly.

	Ingo
-
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/