On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:48:44AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-09-19 10:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:01:49AM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> >> Or, do what the i2c-mux code is doing and use an rt_mutex instead
> >> of an ordinary mutex. That way you are very sure to not get any
> >> lockdep splat ... at all. Ok, sorry, that was not a serious
> >> suggestion, but it would be a tad bit simpler to implement...
> > So I find it weird that people use rt_mutex as a locking primitive,
> > since its only that one lock that then does PI and all the other locks
> > that are related still create inversions.
> So, someone took the bait :-)
> Yes, I too find it weird, and would like to get rid of it. It's just
> odd. It's been some years since the start though, waaay before me
> entering kernel space.
> But it's hard to argue with the numbers given in the discussion:
> Has anything happened to the regular mutex implementation that might
> have changed the picture? *crosses fingers*
Use the -RT kernel and all locks will end up as rt_mutex. Avoiding
inversion on one specific lock, while there are then a gazillion other
than can equally create inversion doesn't make sense to me.