From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] bad BUG_ON in rtmutex.c
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:24:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1145377467.17085.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1145376876.5447.58.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:14 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > Actually, I always thought that running PREEMPT_DESKTOP with soft and hard
> > IRQS as threads was priority ceiling. It's just that all locks have the
> > priority of MAX_RT_PRIO (no preemption allowed). OK, this doesn't apply
> > to mutexes, but it does apply for spin_locks. :)
>
> Interesting way to look at it .
>
> Reminds me of the RT read/write locks, only one read or one writer at a
> time, so it's really just a mutex ..
>
We'll read/write doesn't work well with PI (or latencies for that
matter). But rw_locks have one advantage over normal rt_mutex, and that
is they are self recursive. i.e. one rw_lock can be taken over and over
again (as read) by the same process, as long as it releases it the same
amount of times.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-18 16:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-18 1:48 [RT] bad BUG_ON in rtmutex.c Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 12:20 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 12:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:11 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 13:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 14:09 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 14:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 14:51 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 13:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-04-18 15:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 16:14 ` Daniel Walker
2006-04-18 16:24 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2006-04-18 14:13 ` [PATCH -rt] Remove false BUG_ON from rtmutex.c Steven Rostedt
2006-04-18 13:12 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1145377467.17085.133.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.