Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Feb 2002 14:55:46 -0500 | From | Mark Frazer <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@ns.caldera.de> [02/02/07 14:41]: > What about the following instead: > > combi_lock(struct combilock *x, int spin); > combi_unlock(struct combilock *x);
how about combi_lock (struct combilock *x, int canblock, int shouldblock);
Where the should block flag is copied to the mutex once it's held by the caller to indicate to new threads grabbing the lock how long the lock will be held for.
For locks that are held for some short duration tasks and some long duration tasks, the holder should indicate how long the lock will be held. I'd consider that an improvement over the "spin for a while then block" idea.
Interrupt handlers can't block, so we need a flag to never block.
-mark - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |