Date
1 - 3 of 3
Project Proposal: add sleeping spinlocks to mainline kernel
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>
Summary: add sleeping spinlocks to the mainline kernel
Proposer: Tim Bird Description: One of the last major elements of the RT-preempt patch set that is still not mainlined is the implementation of the so-called "sleeping spinlocks". It would be good to mainline these, addressing remaining issues to their inclusion in the standard Linux kernel. Thomas Gleixner discussed the status of RT-preempt at the [http://lwn.net/Articles/354690/ realtime preemption mini-summit, and the [http://lwn.net/Articles/357465/ 2009 kernel summit]. Related work: * RT-preempt ** http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page Scope: unknown ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America ============================= |
|
Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...>
2009/12/16 Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>:
Summary: add sleeping spinlocks to the mainline kernelIf realtime performance overall is a big deal for CELF I would suggest adding "Kill-the-BKL" to the suggested projects. There are still some RTOS people using the BKL as an argument to flak the Linux kernel, c.f. http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/EMBMCRM.pdf (section 5.2) Another item could be to go through some common embedded arch drivers and switch them from request_irq() to request_threaded_irq() just based on the observation that almost nobody actually use that in the mainline kernel, though I'm sure they should, if realtime is a desired feature. (The wm8350-core driver is an excellent example of a situation where it is used properly.) NB: I'm not a member of the CE Linux Forum and nor is my company so I'm just talking freely here. (linux-embedded is public, hehe.) Yours, Linus Walleij |
|
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>
Linus Walleij wrote:
2009/12/16 Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>:The only reference I could find in section 5.2 to BKL wasSummary: add sleeping spinlocks to the mainline kernelIf realtime performance overall is a big deal for CELF I would suggest an OSE BKL. Maybe I missed the reference to the Linux BKL. (I looked pretty quickly). However, agree that BKL reduction is a worthy goal. Likely, CELF would be most interested in switching to using threaded interrupts in places where the drivers were commonly used in embedded devices. This would require some analysis. But this is another good suggestion. NB: I'm not a member of the CE Linux Forum and nor is my companyThe feedback is much appreciated! -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Corporation of America ============================= |
|