On Thursday 15 November 2007 17:28, David Brownell wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > All this does is prevent constant and needless checking for
> > > "do you want to preempt me now?" "now?" "now?" in "now?" the
> > > middle "now?" of "now?" i/o "now?" loops.
> >
> > Actually that's wrong.
>
> Certainly it's right for the mainstream kernel.  Dropping a
> lock (other than a raw spinlock) does that checking; when a
> loop needs to acquire then drop such a lock, that's exactly
> what's going on.

Obviously a raw spinlock is no different from a regular
spinlock upstream.


quoted text
> And in the RT kernel, it's got to do the same thing ...
> because dropping that lock may mean that a higher priority
> task should immediately run and grab the lock.

No, it wakes up the highest priority waiter. If that wakeup
causes a preemption, then that's fine, but it does not have
to explicitly check preemption when dropping the lock.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/