Messages in this thread |  | | From | kuznet@ms2 ... | Subject | Re: Q: sock output serialization | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:40:08 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| |
Hello!
> Yes, I see. I did not realize before that the lock_sock and the > sk->backlog framework are not two independent things. They really > seem to be designed for team work only. Did I get this right?
Yes.
Actually, in 2.4 lock_sock() is also semaphore and in some cases (f.e. for stateless datagram sockets) it is used as pure semaphore.
> applied seems to make socket propgramming as easy as in the old cli()/sti() > days again.
What??? 8)8)
No, it makes it much easier. 8)
By the way:
1. lock_sock() is not much younger than cli()/sti(). 2. cli()/sti() is not used by attended parts of networking for looong time, they are deprecated not yesterday too.
> tcp also seems to use some additional protocol-global spinlocks
Of course.
> (like tcp_portalloc_lock).
And this is redundant, to be honest. 8)
> the spinlock. In that case, beeing preemptable would make a very essential > difference.
Yes, of course.
> Anyway, it seems that I can already make use the lock_sock() infrastructure > for fixing the output serialization, even without making the whole > protocol stack SMP-aware at once.
Actually, the last task is not a rocket science as well.
Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |