Re: [linux-audio-dev] low-latency scheduling patch for 2.4.0

[george anzinger]

"David S. Miller" wrote:
> 
> Nigel Gamble writes:
>  > That's why MontaVista's kernel preemption patch uses sleeping mutex
>  > locks instead of spinlocks for the long held locks.
> 
> Anyone who uses sleeping mutex locks is asking for trouble.  Priority
> inversion is an issue I dearly hope we never have to deal with in the
> Linux kernel, and sleeping SMP mutex locks lead to exactly this kind
> of problem.
> 
Exactly why we are going to us priority inherit mutexes.  This handles
the inversion nicely.

George