lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ...
> I think we should wakeup the last process that gone to sleep even in the
> up() case. We should simple ask for an EXCLUSIVE wakeup.

wait a sec, what about starvation issues ? if the semaphore is used for
resource counting then it's ok. but if it is used as a mutex then we're
in trouble. LIFO is unacceptable, FIFO might have priority inversion.
calculating goodness() on all the processes in the waitqueue and picking
the winner sounds like the way to go, IMHO.

ganesh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.028 / U:24.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site