From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: dwalker@mvista.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Perez-Gonzalez,
Inaky" <inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Priority Lists for the RT mutex
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:21:46 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1115666506.15027.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1115662430.16016.4.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com>
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 11:13 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 02:11, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > What would be nice to achieve are [low-cost] reductions of the size of
> > struct rt_mutex (in include/linux/rt_lock.h), upon which all other
> > PI-aware locking objects are based. Right now it's 9 words, of which
> > struct plist is 5 words. Would be nice to trim this to 8 words - which
> > would give a nice round size of 32 bytes on 32-bit.
>
> Why not make rt_mutex->wait_lock a pointer ? Set it to NULL and handle
> it in rt.c .
That may make the rt_mutex structure smaller but this increases the size
of the kernel by the size of that pointer (times every rt_mutex in the
kernel!). You still need to allocate the size of the raw spin lock,
although now you just point to it. Is rounding worth that much overhead?
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-09 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-06 18:13 [PATCH] Priority Lists for the RT mutex Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-05-07 7:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-09 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-05-09 8:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-09 9:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-05-09 14:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-09 18:13 ` Daniel Walker
2005-05-09 19:21 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2005-05-09 21:29 ` Daniel Walker
2005-05-09 22:15 ` Daniel Walker
2005-05-09 14:07 ` Daniel Walker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-05-06 9:05 Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-06 11:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2005-05-06 18:56 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-12 0:36 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-11 23:28 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-12 0:27 ` Bill Huey
2005-04-11 22:31 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-11 23:11 ` Bill Huey
2005-04-11 9:03 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-11 8:49 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-11 8:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-11 22:17 ` Bill Huey
2005-04-12 20:35 ` Esben Nielsen
2005-04-11 8:27 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-11 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-08 23:05 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-08 21:25 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2005-04-08 22:53 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-07 17:52 Daniel Walker
2005-04-08 6:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-08 8:05 ` Sven-Thorsten Dietrich
2005-04-10 11:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-12 17:56 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-08 17:11 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-10 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-11 16:19 ` Daniel Walker
2005-04-12 18:37 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1115666506.15027.3.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox