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