lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectDo not deprecate binary semaphore or do allow mutex in software interrupt contexts
 Arjan van de Ven:
> what do you do if the trylock fails?

Just do not read the status variable now but modify the timer to run later.

> to be honest, the scenario describe really smells of broken locking, in
> fact it really sounds like it wants to use spinlocks instead

No, I don't think it is broken.
Spinlocks can be used, but I don't see them being obviously better in all cases.
If access takes a long time, it is better to sleep during it.
And if you sleep, you might just end up creating a new mutex implementation with a spinlock.

Alan Cox:
> For polling and timer based code its often simpler to do
>
> del_timer_sync(&my_timer);
> FrobStuff
> add_timer(&my_timer);
>
> especially if "FrobStuff" is likely to change when you next need to poll.

In the scenario I presented, the timer modifies itself to run later.
Therefore, simply calling del_timer_sync is not enough but you have to set an atomic variable to prevent the timer from adding itself again.
Again, you end up creating a new mutex implementation, which is not good.




__________________________________
Yahoo! Clever - Der einfachste Weg, Fragen zu stellen und Wissenswertes mit Anderen zu teilen. www.yahoo.de/clever

-
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: 2007-09-11 18:23    [W:0.033 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site