Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow) | From | Lee Revell <> | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:53:53 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 13:02 +0900, Samuel Masham wrote: > On 26/01/06, Samuel Masham <samuel.masham@gmail.com> wrote: > > comment: > > As a rt person I don't like the idea of scheduler bounce so the way > > round seems to be have the mutex lock acquiring work on a FIFO like > > basis. > > which is obviously wrong... > > Howeve my basic point stands but needs to be clarified a bit: > > I think I can print non-compliant if the mutex acquisition doesn't > respect the higher priority of the waiter over the current process > even if the mutex is "available". > > OK?
I don't think using an optional feature (PI) counts...
Lee
- 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/
| |