On Oct 1, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 12:52 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
Do you have any suggestions for locking constructs that RT would
prefer?
Basically, anything that maps to a simple mutex. Anything more complex
gets real messy real quick.
I'm worried that the aio+dio implementation of concurrent pending IOs
just doesn't map well to PI.
Would a hack with a mutex and counts help at all? It seems like it
would still have the same problem. The count increments don't
transfer ownership to the count decrements and the wake up.
io submission from tasks:
down(&inode->i_mutex);
atomic_inc(&inode->in_flight);
up(&inode->i_mutex);
io completion from interrupts:
if(atomic_dec_and_test(&inode->in_flight))
wake_up(&inode->waiting);
file allocation in tasks:
down(&inode->i_mutex);
wait_event(inode->waiting, atomic_read(&inode->in_flight) == 0);
up(&inode->i_mutex);
(yeah, yeah, starvation -- it's just a demonstration)
In any case, this seems like it's not a very high priority now that
RT has Steven's work-around. If it does become a priority can you
guys let linux-fsdevel know?
- z
-
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]
