[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1168446809.22579.10.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:33:29 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Pierre Peiffer <pierre.peiffer@...l.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
Jean-Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@...l.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.20-rc4 1/4] futex priority based wakeup
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 17:29 +0100, Pierre Peiffer wrote:
> >
> > Is this really necessary? The rtmutex will priority sort the waiters
> > when you enable priority inheritance. Inside the wake_futex_pi() it
> > actually just pulls the new owner off another plist inside the the
> > rtmutex structure.
>
> Yes. ... necessary for non-PI-futex (ie "normal" futex)...
>
> As the hash_bucket_list is used and common for both futex and PI-futex, yes, in
> case of PI_futex, the task is queued two times in two plist.
You could make them distinct .. Also Did you consider merging the PI
path and the non-PI code path? then you could modify the rtmutex to
toggle PI depending .
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists