On 11/08/2012 10:42 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:28:53PM -0600, Till Straumann wrote:
Thanks, that's helpful.
Wouldn't it also be possible to make my own version of
prepare_to_wait()/finish_wait()/wake_up() etc. which internally
use a raw spinlock instead of a normal one?
I believe that what you described used to exist in the form of a
'simple' waitqueue, but I don't recall what happened to it. Maybe
Thomas can shed some light here.
In general though, if you care about determinism, you'd want to avoid
the use of such a mechanism unless you can somehow externally provide an
upper bound on the number of waiters.
Josh
Of course. However, for the type of synchronization device we are talking
about here (hardirq wakes up a user-land worker) a (hardirq-safe)
completion-like
device supporting a single waiter only would be good enough.
- Till
--
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
