On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 02:45, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'd agree with turning most of the finegrained per-task (non-irq-safe) > spinlocks into mutexes (or spin-mutexes). But the central locks that an > RT task would likely hit need to remain spinlocks i believe. > > plus there are central mutexes too that are in 'hiding' currently but > could cause latencies just as much.
Here are patches that convert spinlocks into kernel mutexes with priority inheritance. They look reasonably clean, and might be interesting to try. http://inf3-www.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de/research/linux/mutex/mutex.html Best regards, Eric St-Laurent
