On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 09:05 -0400, john cooper wrote: > Sven Dietrich wrote: [...] > > This one probably should be a raw_spinlock. > > This lock is only held to protect access to the queues. > > Since the queues are already priority ordered, there is > > little benefit to ordering -the order of insertion- > > in case of contention on a queue, compared with the complexity. > > The choice of lock type should derive from both the calling > context and the length of time the lock is expected to be held. >
In this case, I don't think time matters for choice of lock. Time matters to keep it short since it does need the raw_spin_lock. This lock is part of the whole locking scheme, and would be similar to not using raw_spin_locks in the implementation of rt_mutex. Well, not exactly the same, but if we want the fusyn code to use the same code as rt_mutex for PI, then it will need to be a raw_spin_lock. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
