From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Better i2c access latencies in high load situations Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:43:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20090916224328.47e349ab@hyperion.delvare> References: <1253099829-17655-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@nokia.com> <20090916134944.4a329d62@hyperion.delvare> <1253102935.13914.7.camel@adserver2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1253102935.13914.7.camel@adserver2> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mika Kuoppala Cc: "ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org" , "linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.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