From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.2.9-rt17 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 11:23:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1331230991.25686.452.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1331231287.11248.396.camel@twins> <1331232159.25686.456.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1331235579.11248.402.camel@twins> <1331237441.25686.469.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1331261425.25686.527.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML , linux-rt-users To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:45770 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753224Ab2CIKXK (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 05:23:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1331261425.25686.527.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 01:20 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So yopu need to replace the trylock by try_deadlock() and boost the > > lock owner w/o blocking on the lock. That means that you need some > > other means to tell the lock owner that you are waiting for it w/o > > actually waiting. > > Actually, you don't need to tell the lock owner you are waiting for it, > you only need to make the lock itself have a priority, and the owner > will inherit that priority as long as it holds the lock. Hmm, that would actually work, though I'm not too enthusiastic about sched_yield(). Thanks, tglx