lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Subjectquestion about __raw_spin_lock()
    Date
    Dear experts!

    Trying to inform myself about the locking possibilities on i386, I
    read linux/include/asm-i386/spinlock.h. I'm no expert on inline
    assembly, so I'm asking myself what would happen on a very big system
    if more than 128 threads are waiting on the same raw_spinlock_t.
    Would the 129th locker erroneously succeed immediately?

    As a side note: I was looking because I have to implement a simple
    lock between processes in shared memory, and unfortunately I cannot
    use the NPTL :-( SysV semaphores presumably are much too heavy to
    protect simple linked list operations (no scanning of the list under
    the lock, just inserting on one end and removing from the other).
    Does anybody have a better idea than spinning in user space---with a
    nanosleep now and then---or does this have problems I'm not aware of?

    Thanks for your help,

    Roland

    --
    TU Muenchen, Physik-Department E18, James-Franck-Str., 85748 Garching
    Telefon 089/289-12575; Telefax 089/289-12570
    --
    CERN office: 892-1-D23 phone: +41 22 7676540 mobile: +41 76 487 4482
    --
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little
    security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
    Version: 3.12
    GS/CS/M/MU d-(++) s:+ a-> C+++ UL++++ P+++ L+++ E(+) W+ !N K- w--- M
    + !V Y+
    PGP++ t+(++) 5 R+ tv-- b+ DI++ e+++>++++ h---- y+++
    ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-06 10:29    [W:0.022 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site