Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >> In my defense, the -rt versions of the patches guarantee this is ok >> based on a little hack: >> > > The -rt versions worry about much more than what the mutex code in > mainline does. Linus is correct in his arguments. The adaptive mutex (as > suppose to what -rt has), is only to help aid in preformance. There are a > lot of races that can happen in mainline version where lock taking may not > be fifo, or where we might start to schedule when we could have taken the > lock. These races are not in -rt, but that is because -rt cares about > these. But mainline cares more about performance over determinism. This > means that we have to look at the current code that Peter is submitting > with a different perspective than we do in -rt. >
Hey Steve, Understood, and agreed. I only mentioned it because I wanted to clear the record that I did not (to my knowledge) mess up the protocol design which first introduced the get/put-task pattern under discussion ;). I am fairly confident that at least the -rt version does not have any race conditions such as the one Linus mentioned in the mainline version. I am not advocating that the full protocol that we use in -rt should be carried forward, per se or anything like that. -Greg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
