[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Add support for semaphore-like structure with support for asynchronous I/O

    Benjamin LaHaise <> wrote:

    > Oh dear, this is going to take a while. In any case, here is such a
    > first step in creating such a sequence of patches. Located at
    > are the following patches:
    > ...
    > 10_new_mutex.diff - Replaces the semphore mutex with a new mutex
    > derrived from Trond's iosem patch. Note that
    > this fixes a serious bug in iosems: see the
    > change in mutex_lock_wake_function that ignores
    > the return value of default_wake_function, as
    > on SMP a process might still be running while
    > we actually made progress.

    Can I suggest you don't use a wait_queue_t in your mutex? The way you've
    implemented your mutex you appear to have to take spinlocks and disable
    interrupts a lot more than is necessary.

    You might want to look at how I've implemented semaphores for the frv arch:


    On FRV disabling interrupts is quite expensive, so I've made my own simple
    semaphores that don't need to take spinlocks and disable interrupts in the
    down() path once the sleeping task has been queued[*]. These work in exactly
    the same way as rwsems.

    [*] except for the case where down_interruptible() is interrupted.

    The point being that since up() needs to take the semaphore's spinlock anyway
    so that it can access the list, up() does all the necessary dequeuing of tasks
    before waking them up.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-15 18:17    [W:0.023 / U:0.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site