Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: furwocks: Fast Userspace Read/Write Locks | Date | 7 Mar 2002 19:26:08 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <E16j95K-00047G-00@wagner.rustcorp.com.au> By author: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > I m not in favor of that. The dominant lock will be mutexes. > > To clarify: I'd love this, but rwlocks in the kernel aren't even > vaguely fair. With a steady stream of overlapping readers, a writer > will never get the lock. >
Note that there really are two kinds of rwlocks: rwlocks with read priority, and rwlocks with write priority. They're actually fairly different operations. I guess one can envision other schemes, too, but that's the main distinction.
Neither is particularly hard to implement, however, it's probably better if they are considered different types (perhaps we can call the ones with write priority "wrlocks" instead of "rwlocks").
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - 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/
| |