From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48B2E194.3040905@domain.hid> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:45:08 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <48B2D1C4.5010306@domain.hid> <48B2E115.4070107@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <48B2E115.4070107@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Fast native mutexes vs. RT_MUTEX_INFO.lockcnt List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: rpm@xenomai.org Cc: xenomai-core Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> next issue on my way towards fast native mutexes: as mutexes are now >> mostly acquired in user space, the recursion counter lockcnt will only >> be maintained in the context of the owning thread (at best: its process) >> in user space. No update on the kernel-side lockcnt will take place >> anymore, thus rt_mutex_inquire can only return 0 or 1, no > 1. Is it OK >> to break the ABI here? >> > > I think so, we might lose some debug information, but that's the price for much > better performances. I can't imagine any sane code iterating lockcnt-times > blindly to unlock a mutex it owns until it is free. Nah, of course not... > > Btw, I guess that the /proc information about mutexes would have to be reworked > as well. Haven't looked into this yet (or haven't stumbled over any issue). What conflict / lack of data do you have in mind here? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux