[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1425300626.5863.22.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:50:26 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] locking: ww_mutex: Allow to use rt_mutex instead of
mutex for the baselock
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 09:46 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Op 02-03-15 om 04:20 schreef Mike Galbraith:
> > On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 17:57 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >> This patch makes it possible to replace the base mutex by a rt_mutex. In
> >> general one would not do this.
> > I would argue that the thing should be born as a full fledged primitive,
> > not a config option, as an rt_ww_mutex is the ww extension of rt_mutex.
> > We have to do the global substitution in -rt, but why should it not
> > exist in its own right in mainline?
> Well I haven't seen any users that specifically need a rt_ww_mutex,
> but flipping the switch on ww_mutex could be useful for testing. :)
Imagine a manufacturer of MRI machines.. they have both hard realtime
constraints and hefty rendering requirements. I suspect they could find
a use for both.
-Mike
--
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