On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:22 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >rwsems/rwlocks are not an issue in -rt because they have different
> > >semantics there - and thus readers cannot amass. I do think rwsems and
> > >rwlocks have pretty nasty characteristics [non-latency ones] for the
> > >mainline kernel's use too, but that's not being argued here ;)
> >
> > But all I'm saying is that while there are equivalent magnitudes of
> > interrupts off regions in mainline, there is little point introducing
> > a hack like this to "solve" one of them.
>
> nobody is arguing to have this hack included. Hacks are to be introduced
> into the scheduler only over my cold dead body ;-) Steve only sent this
> as an RFC thing, to raise the issue.
I'll confirm this. Even in my submission, I stated that this was
probably wrong, and wanted comments (thank you btw for commenting :). I
just wanted to show where the problem was, and that the problem went
away with the "hack".
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
