Re: [PATCH 0/1] Better i2c access latencies in high load situations

[Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:08:55 +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:49 +0200, ext Jean Delvare wrote:
> 
> > Can you please define "get a kick"? I don't know anything about
> > rt_mutex.
> > 
> 
> Sorry for using a vague metaphor. Documentation/rt-mutex.txt explains it
> as:
> 
> "A low priority owner of a rt-mutex inherits the priority of a higher
> priority waiter until the rt-mutex is released. If the temporarily
> boosted owner blocks on a rt-mutex itself it propagates the priority
> boosting to the owner of the other rt_mutex it gets blocked on. The
> priority boosting is immediately removed once the rt_mutex has been
> unlocked."
> 
> You might want to also take a look at Documentation/rt-mutex-design.txt

Thanks for the clarification. It all makes a lot of sense. I'll give
your patch a try, although I don't use I2C for anything time-critical
so I doubt it makes a difference for me.

But now I am curious, why don't we use rt_mutex instead of regular
mutex all around the place?

-- 
Jean Delvare