![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Bill Huey <bhuey@lnxw.com> wrote:
> The lock chains aren't that deep in Linux so the algorithmic
> complexity is not going to hit some crazy polynomial time unless
> there's some seriously nasty contention at a certain point in the
> kernel (billions of readers for example against a write aquire). But
> when we start to see things like that under pressure is when we need
> to start shortening the need for that/those lock(s) for that/those
> critical section(s) in question.
also note that in the -U series i removed the true 'read' logic from
semaphores. What we have now are single writers only, plus readers
emulated as a writer plus the ability to self-recurse. ('writers' are
not allowed to self-recurse.) This is quite close to the semantic needs
of Linux rwlocks and rwsems and it simplified both locking, deadlock
detection and PI quite significantly.
Ingo
-
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/
| ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||