[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts from 1 sec to 1 min

    * Ingo Molnar <> wrote:

    > no. Write-locks are unfair too, and there's no guarantee that writes
    > are listened to. That's why nested read_lock() is valid, while nested
    > down_read() is invalid.
    > Take a look at arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c, __write_lock_failed()
    > just adds back the RW_LOCK_BIAS and retries in a loop. There's no
    > difference to an open-coded write_trylock loop - unless i'm missing
    > something fundamental.

    did i ever mention that i find rwlocks evil, inefficient and bug-prone,
    and that we should get rid of them? :-)

    (Most rwlock users can be converted to straight spinlocks just fine, but
    there are a couple of places that rely on read-lock nesting. The
    hardest-to-fix offenders are nested rcu_read_locks() in the netfilter
    code. I gave up converting them to saner locking, PREEMPT_RCU works it
    around in the -rt tree, by not being rwlock based.)

    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: 2006-06-19 10:29    [W:0.021 / U:24.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site