Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:53:08 -0400 | Subject | Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [announce] [patch] Voluntary Kernel Preemption Patch | From | Scott Wood <> |
| |
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:40:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Scott Wood <scott@timesys.com> wrote: > > This sort of substitution is what we did in 2.4, though we made this > > type the default and gave the real spinlocks a new name to be used in > > those few places where it was really needed. Of course, this resulted > > in a lot of places using a mutex where a spinlock would have been > > fine. > > what are those few places where a spinlock was really needed?
Places that inherently cannot sleep, such as inside the scheduler, the unthreadable part of the hard IRQ code, inside the mutex implementation, etc.
> I'm a bit uneasy about making mutexes the default not due to performance > but due to e.g. some hardware being very timing-sensitive.
In practice, this didn't turn out to be an issue; most modern hardware seems to be pretty tolerant of that (and you already have to deal with things like interrupts getting in the way), and drivers which do local_irq_disable() or to ensure timing will still work.
Has this sort of problem been seen with RT-Linux and such, which would cause similar delays?
-Scott - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |