Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07

Ingo Molnar
2005-03-25T06:22:18Z

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk> wrote:

> I like the idea of having the scheduler take care of it - it is a very
> optimal coded queue-system after all. That will work on UP but not on
> SMP. Having the unlock operation to set the mutex in a "partially
> owned" state will work better. The only problem I see, relative to
> Ingo's implementation, is that then the awoken task have to go in and
> change the state of the mutex, i.e. it has to lock the wait_lock
> again. Will the extra schedulings being the problem happen offen
> enough in practise to have the extra overhead?

i think this should be covered by the 'unschedule/unwakeup' feature,
mentioned in the latest mails.

Ingo