On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 08:52 -0700, mark gross wrote: > Keeping a lock around the different "target_value"s may not be so > important. Its just a 32bit scaler value, and perhaps we can make it an > atomic type? That way we loose the raw_spinlock. My suggestion was to keep the locking for the write side - so as to avoid stuff stomping on one another, but drop the read side as: spin_lock foo = var; spin_unlock return foo; is kinda useless, it doesn't actually serialize against the usage of foo, that is, once it gets used, var might already have acquired a new value. The only thing it would protect is reading var, but since that is a machine sized read, its atomic anyway (assuming its naturally aligned). So no need for atomic_t (its read-side is just a read too), just drop the whole lock usage from pq_qos_requirement(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
