| | From | David Howells <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | | Date | Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:34:14 +0000 |
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Any reason why you're setting up your own style of waitqueue in > > mutex-simple.c instead of just using the kernel's style of waitqueue? > > Because I can steal the code from FRV's semaphores or rw-semaphores, and this > way I can be sure of what I'm doing.
And because:
struct mutex { int state; wait_queue_head_t wait_queue; }; Wastes 8 more bytes of memory than:
struct mutex { int state; spinlock_t wait_lock; struct list_head wait_list; }; on a 64-bit machine if spinlock_t is 4 bytes. Both waste 4 bytes if spinlock_t is 8 bytes.
David - 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/
|