[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323190602.30977.94.camel@frodo>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:42 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 7/7] rcu: Quiet RCU-lockdep warnings
involving interrupt disabling
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 08:04 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Perhaps the real answer is that we need to create an API for priority
> > inheritance, that things like RCU could use. Attach a task that another
> > task requires to finish something and boost the priority of that task.
> > Maybe even completions could use such a thing?
>
> I would be OK with that -- that was in fact the approach I was taking
> when I was advised to use mutexes instead. ;-)
Maybe we should rethink it. Using the makeshift mutex looks to be a
short term hack. But if we are starting to build on it, it will end up
being a horrible design, based off of a hack.
A mutex is to provide mutual exclusion. If we start bastardizing it to
do other things, it will become unmaintainable. I dare say that it's
close to unmaintainable now ;)
If we create a new API to handle inheritance, then perhaps it could be
used for other things like workqueues and completions (in -rt only).
-- Steve
--
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